WOMAN: "Is it true that there is no reality, but that we only imagine things existing which do not in fact actually exist?"

MAN: "Are you suggesting the predication that not only are we are presuming continual lies by deceptively imagining what does not in truth exist, but that the illusions apart from us which we think that we detect with what we imagine to be our five senses are also lies originating from whoever?"

WOMAN: "God the Creator, if you can imagine Him being called that with such superior-gender pronoun designation, is assumed to be invisible, like gamma or whatever radiation emitted from a radioactive isotope, and like gravity which cannot be seen, and like oxygen, also invisible. Does that invisibility mean that God does not exist?"

MAN: "How did you ever come up with the idea that there is a God who or that exists?"

WOMAN: "I have been told, both verbally and from literature coming from who I imagine to be others, that there is a Creator God who has in fact created entities around us, which we can choose to accept as reality and either appropriately or inappropriately deal with . . . or instead reject it all as deceptive illusions.

At least, it is deductively logical that God, the Creator, has created whatever we imagine that He has created, if He really did create such, being that we at least think that we see, hear, smell, taste, and feel His created entities around us which we at least imagine do exist."

MAN: "So you are saying that if there was nothing actually there in existence to imagine, how would we come up with only imagining in our own minds whatever we had no basis or idea to imagine in the first place?"

WOMAN: "Precisely. And both of us have encountered and perhaps also confronted various religious assertions from others which we did not concoct ourselves, claiming not only the existence of entities around us, but identifying the Source from which they came."

MAN: "It is intriguing that both of us, you and I in this case, detect the same things we both agree on at least imagining together. For example, I speak words to you which you at least think you understand, and you respond what I consider logically as to what I imagine makes sense relating to that."

WOMAN: "From early childhood, I imagine that we both learned through interactions with what we at least imagined with what are assume are our perhaps-actual five senses, or at least my own. I have imagined that not only is what I think is a burning candle flame to be to so hot that I could not keep my finger inside it, but further imagined that, when I have kept that finger in the flame a certain duration of time, for experimentation, my finger became what I imagined to be burned and what I thereafter imagined as becoming blistered with what appeared to be third-degree burns. Same thing upon touching what I imagined to be a hot stove and hot iron, and the dire unpleasantness I imagined happening to myself after I drank a tablespoon of what I imagined was Clorox for more experimentation, soon afterwards resulting in what I imagined was 911-beckoned hospitalization."

MAN: "I imagined that I had a similar experience going through what I imagined to be a red stoplight in what I imagined was my car running on what I presumed was an imaginary road. What could have been an imaginary cop in an imaginary squad car turned on what I thought was imaginary red-and-blue strobe lights behind my vehicle, and I thereafter imagined that I stopped my car, and . . . well. . . have you imagined something like that happening to you?"

WOMAN: "Perhaps you merely thought it happened. But for some strange cause, because of my previous interactions and experiences with what I thought were real entities, I am getting more and more fearful as time goes on of presuming the real existence of what I see, hear, smell, taste, and feel which might really exist.

The reason for that is that increasing amounts of what I imagined were excruciating pain and what seemed like injury to various parts of my body rather predictably occurred when I did not accommodate to what I imagined were real objects and entities around me.

It seemed that my will, of necessity, is required, or even forced (voluntarily, of course) to comply with and adjust to the existence of what I imagine are entities other than myself, which entities do not adjust to my whims as whether or not I think that they exist, want them to exist, or pretend that they exist."

MAN: "So therefore, being that you have accommodated to get out of the way of various entities and objects which you have imagined existed, you have also accommodated and adjusted to the will of whoever created those obstructions which you imagined existed."

WOMAN: "Exactly. But excuse me while I imagine what is defined as a potty break. I'll be back, or at least imagine that I'll be back."

MAN: "Me too."

WOMAN: "OK. I'm back, or at least I think that I am back.

Again, I have imagined that I have consistently discovered that if I do not accommodate or adjust or comply sufficiently to the at-least imagined objects and entities from whoever created and continues to cause the existence of such, increasing amounts of what I imagine to be discomfort and pain result, and the more violently or vehemently or persistently I have not complied or adjusted but instead deluded myself, the more pain I have imagined myself incurring."

MAN: "Have you, and/or I, considered the possibility that various objects and entities we think we react to actually exist, and therefore are a logical and truthful basis for us adjusting and accommodating to such as needed?"

WOMAN: "That is a possibility, and would satisfactorily explain our life-saving reactions of mostly accommodation but sometimes denial - and the consequences of both - to avoid what might not simply be our presumption of experiencing pain but in fact actually experiencing it, to avoid perhaps even further or fatal injury and death."

MAN: "Would it be intolerably embarrassing and humiliating to assume that the objects and entities we think we detect with our five senses actually exist?"

WOMAN: "If we did that, then we, by default, would also have to assume that real objects and entities were actually created by the actual will of an actual Creator who has given such actual objects and entities a sovereign immobility and existence which will not get out of our way whether we want them to or not, but which we must adjust to and comply with if we do not want to suffer pain and even death for ignoring or denying them."

MAN: "Consequently, as I see and completely what I have imagined to be your actual birthday-suited pulchritude as we dialogue, there is a valid incentive for us to comply with and accommodate to the religious directive I came across once in a book called "The Bible" to reproductively multiply, which - logically - would insure and guarantee our humankind not becoming extinct."

WOMAN: "Spot on. Ironically, I have come to the same conclusion you have, which in one sense goes beyond mere coincidence and happenstance. As I study your sundry protuberances, and certain ones in particular, and compare them with mine, I see potential for logical and probably quite enjoyable copulative connection which could very well result in the progenie-productive scenario of continuing humankind survival which you intuitively alluded to."

MAN: "Although we do not have much space and it probably will not be too comfortable, we do have a restroom nearby in case nature calls again, or whatever. Let's put theory into practice, thus assiduously explore and discover whatever contingencies there might be for reproductive conjugation."

WOMAN: "How should we initiate the sequence?"

MAN: "Only what you imagine that I might imagine would be best. But first, let us delve a little deeper into the depths of each other's psyche, to see if we can relate on not simply a platonic level but rather one ubiquitous to all indigenous homosapiens. Are you pro-choice?"

WOMAN: "As opposed to what?"

MAN: "In contrast to being anti-choice?"

WOMAN: "Choice about what?"

MAN: "You've read the news, know the issues, and follow the latest controversies. You know what the choice is about. We do not have to mention or discuss that."

WOMAN: "Choice about what?"

MAN: "Do you support a woman's right to choose?"

WOMAN: "Choose what?"

MAN: "Do you support women's health?"

WOMAN: "Health to do what?"

MAN: "Do you support a woman's reproductive freedom?"

WOMAN: "Freedom to reproduce?"

[Oh Oh. The school bell rings. The buzzer sounds. Time for a commercial. You've graciously been warned before it happens, so that you can prepare. It will portray http://slenderizers.tripod.com/femmhair and not be piggy-backed with more than 5 commercials in a row, and will last exactly and only 4.73958 minutes. Here's your big chance to go to the bathroom.]

WOMAN: "Do you support abortion rights?"

MAN: "I do not answer foolish questions such as that, because you have just uttered an oxymoron. There is no right to commit abortion homicide nor any sinful or criminal action. Was that what you meant by "choice," by "reproductive freedom," and "women's health?"

WOMAN: "I'll go on to the next question. Do you believe in evolution?"

MAN: "Does it matter whether I believe or do not believe whatever, and what do you mean by "believe in evolution?" That such a theory exists? That there are those who vocally presume such theory is valid, and propagandize such?"

WOMAN: "Is evolution true, or false?"

MAN: Now, you've asked the question a way it should be asked, in wording which is appropriate. The answer is an emphatic: 'False.' The anti-Biblical-creationist theory of evolution is certainly invalid."

WOMAN: "No need to bring in religion here, nor refer to the Bible."

MAN: "I will refer to anything I want, and think appropriate, or this interview will promptly end, and we will go our separate ways."

WOMAN: "You might be held in contempt of court. Do you support gay rights?"

MAN: "You might be held in contempt of court. What do you mean by gay?"

WOMAN: Oh c'mon now. Everybody knows what that means nowadays. Do you support gay rights? Quit stalling. Answer the question!"

MAN: "Hey, if I knew what you meant by "gay" I would not have asked you the question of what you meant by "gay" being that I would have already known the answer. I'll ask you again: What do you mean by gay?"

WOMAN: "Do you support homosexual rights?"

MAN: "There you go again, wording the question as an oxymoron. Two things diametrically opposed to each other. Why do you do that? Are you trying to legitimize something that you yourself imply is not legitimate? Why not rephrase the question into a proper question, instead of a loaded one? I remember my mother-in-law frequently saying to me: "Why would I do that?" Recognizing her loaded compound question as would be presented by some tricky lawyer to avoid recriminating backlash whatever my answer might be, I responded: "First we'll have to find out if you would or would not do such. Then we'll get to discussing the 'why' of it."

[Oh Oh. The school bell rings. The buzzer sounds. Time for another commercial. You've graciously been warned before it happens, so that you can prepare. It will portray http://smotevart.tripod.com/ and not be piggy-backed with more than 6 commercials in a row, and will last exactly and only 5.19374 minutes. Here's your big chance to go to the kitchen, and get a snack and a drink.]

MAN: "Is homosexuality acceptable or non-acceptable?"

WOMAN: "What do you mean by "acceptable?" That a person can accept or reject it? What do you mean by "acceptable?"

MAN: "OK OK. Enough already! Is homosexuality right or wrong, righteous or wicked, good or evil?"

WOMAN: "Ah! Finally! Bingo! Now you've asked a question a way it should be asked -- enabling me to give a brief, concise, short, to the point, time-saving, yes-or-no answer."

MAN: "What is it?"

WOMAN: "What is what?"

MAN: "Is homosexuality right or wrong, righteous or wicked, good or evil?"

WOMAN: "Homosexuality is always wrong, evil, wicked, and more along those lines. Get it? Got it? Good."

MAN: "Is it wrong for a girl or woman to wear a shortened skirt?"

WOMAN: "Can't answer that, because your question is woefully and deplorably non-qualified - which, by now, I have come to expect from you. A shortened skirt under which she is wearing slacks or non-tight leotards? A shortened skirt baring legs only in view of her own husband in their own house or bedroom or bathroom? Your question needs some serious qualification and context. You sure know how to waste interview time asking questions with incomplete, misleading, errant, or deceptive weasel-wording, and we do not have that much time to fool around jawing with each other."

MAN: "Is it wrong, evil, bad, wicked, for a girl or woman to ignorantly or especially deliberately expose her bare-naked legs, for whatever cause and not necessarily "reason," to boys and/or men she is not currently married to?"

WOMAN: "Ahhhh! My, the improvement in your question! Semantics Paradise! I am overwhelmed. Taken back. Thrilled. It almost sent a tingle up my leg, as Chris Matthews would say. Most pleased. Gratified. Thankful. Appreciative. Satisfied. What was the question?"

MAN: "Is it wrong, evil, bad, wicked, for a girl or woman to ignorantly or especially deliberately expose her bare-naked legs, for whatever cause and not necessarily "reason," to boys and men she is not currently married to?"

WOMAN: "Yes."

[Oh Oh. The school bell rings. The buzzer sounds. Time for a commercial. You've graciously been warned before it happens, so that you can prepare. It will portray http://computerarium.tripod.com/sluthair.htm and not be piggy-backed with more than 5 commercials in a row, and will last exactly and only 4.95723 minutes. Here's your big chance to go the mailbox to pick up the mail, or take out the garbage.]

MAN: "Have you ever watched porn, or fornicated with a masseuse or escort?"

WOMAN: "Completely, or partially, fornicated? Or momentarily wanted to?"

MAN: "Whatever."

WOMAN: "Not 'whatever.' The distinction is crucial."

MAN: "Have you ever watched porn, or had a one-night stand or an affair with a masseur or escort?"

WOMAN: "Have you?"

MAN: "I'm asking you."

WOMAN: "As I, you."

MAN: "I'm not homogay, yet at times I am quite yippie-skippie, carefree, and merrily gay - like I was when I was a happy toddler."

[Oh Oh. The school bell rings. The buzzer sounds. Time for a commercial. You've graciously been warned before it happens, so that you can prepare. It will portray http://computerarium.tripod.com/mphdized.htm and not be piggy-backed with more than 7 commercials in a row, and will last exactly and only 6.79724 minutes. Here's your big chance to go downstairs to pull the clothes out of the dryer and into the clean basket and haul it upstairs.]