>>1844255 (old b.)

I really do not know that this is an accurate assessment of the texts? Not trying to shill, slide, slip, dip, trip, whatever.

I've been re-reading the doc today and my initial instinct stands:

They're /ourguys/.

I'm open to being proven wrong, of course!

Has anyone else notice some linguistic

nuances, or "timeline coincidences"

or interesting conversations re: Andy?

I mean, I know 500 pages is a lot of pages

and at the same time the 500 pages are

PRETTY GOOD READING!!!!