>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:17:56 -0400, "Otto Bahn" ><GoAheadKissMy...@Blew.Devels.com> wrote: >>Saying there were a 155 on a plane is a little iffy, >IJWTS that when I hear police/emergency dipatchers talk about a >crippled plane coming in for a landing, or a plane landing because of >a medical emergency, they always refer to "souls on board," as in "The >plane has diverted from Salt Lake City with 100 souls on board." >I'm too lazy to look up the origins of this phrase and why it >continues to be used in such contexts. I'm hoping one of you brainiacs >will know.
It's the number of passengers minus the number of network admin@%#@^#
NO CARRIER
-- Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay Icy colon barge Cancer Biology Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University By reading this line you agree to mow my lawn. NO GIVEBACKS.
Marc Goodman <marc.good...@comcast.net> writes: >Kevin S. Wilson wrote: >> IJWTS that when I hear police/emergency dipatchers talk about a >> crippled plane coming in for a landing, or a plane landing because of >> a medical emergency, they always refer to "souls on board," as in "The >> plane has diverted from Salt Lake City with 100 souls on board."
>> I'm too lazy to look up the origins of this phrase and why it >> continues to be used in such contexts. I'm hoping one of you brainiacs >> will know. >AND WHAT ABOUT THE DOGS?? IF THERE ARE 5 DOGS IN THE CARGO COMPARTMENT, >DOES THAT MAKE 105 SOULS ON BOARD OR STILL ONLY 100?? WHO GETS TO DECIDE >WHETHER DOGS HAVE SOULS OR NOT????
One hundred and five sevenths.
-- Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay Icy colon barge Cancer Biology Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University By reading this line you agree to mow my lawn. NO GIVEBACKS.
"Otto Bahn" <GoAheadKissMy...@Blew.Devels.com> writes: >Hmmm...I wonder if the yearly death data we get from the >State has the cause of death. It would be interesting to >see what percentage of them go gently into that good night, >how many go by morphine drip, go instantly, go by fire, and >by tree chipper.
And who in her lonely slip, who by barbiturate, who in these realms of love, who by something blunt, and who by avalanche, and who by being drowned in ranch? -- Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay Icy colon barge Cancer Biology Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University By reading this line you agree to mow my lawn. NO GIVEBACKS.
>>barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >>> >>>Stop that! You know better, even if you are allowed.
>>> >> Since when is taunting Lots42 antiARKian?
>>> >It's not the taunting, it's doing it in a rational manner. Everything >>> >you wrote was clear, concise and to the point.
>>> That's my favorite kind of taunting. There's no reason for it to >>> upset the tauntee--no flames, no irrationality--but it nearly always >>> does.
>>> And it's plenty ARKian if it gets Lots42 to tell me to get offa his >>> lawn.
>>Barb, if you are tying to not make sense, congratulations, you succeded.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:26:37 +0000 (UTC), jm...@Stanford.EDU
(Joseph Michael Bay) wrote: >"Otto Bahn" <GoAheadKissMy...@Blew.Devels.com> writes:
>>Hmmm...I wonder if the yearly death data we get from the >>State has the cause of death. It would be interesting to >>see what percentage of them go gently into that good night, >>how many go by morphine drip, go instantly, go by fire, and >>by tree chipper.
>And who in her lonely slip, who by barbiturate, who in these >realms of love, who by something blunt, and who by avalanche, >and who by being drowned in ranch?
Kevin S. Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:41:24 -0400, barb...@bookpro.com wrote:
>>So, to repeat his request: Since you are aware of "many tragedies" in >>which "the exact number IS known," he would like you to provide a >>single actual example.
> King Lear 10 > Hamlet 8
, which reduced King Lear's magic number to 12, and put Hamlet 4 games back in the wildcard race.
>>I think he was looking for you to provide documentation to back up >>this statement that you made: "In many tragedies, the exact number IS >>known."
>>He asked for an example. You gave one. It turned out that in the >>example you gave, they did not know the exact number for sure, and he >>explained why. You admitted that you had made an assumption about the >>airlines that turned out to be incorrect. So since your example >>didn't back up your assertion, you're back at square one.
>>So, to repeat his request: Since you are aware of "many tragedies" in >>which "the exact number IS known," he would like you to provide a >>single actual example.
>>BW
> Let me sort this out: I've learned that counting the number of > passengers on a plane is not always an exact science. Why? God only > knows.
Actually, you could know if you read this thread.
> But it would seem to me that with the sheer number of man hours that > went into investigaitng 9-11, they'd know the numbers for -that- > tragedy. It makes no sense not to know for certain, espceially re: the > planes.
How? It's not like there were RFIDs implanted in everyone involved and working readers on all the streets.
> What, did they just ask the airline ticket agencies for the estimate of > 'souls' on the plane and ignore all the people reporting their family > member vanished on 9-11?
How many people used 9-11 as a reason to disappear and take up a new identity.
> P.S. Yeah, the above contradicts some of what I've said before but > things change.
NEEDS MORE CHANGE!!!11!!!
-- Matthew
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)
>> What, did they just ask the airline ticket agencies for the estimate of >> 'souls' on the plane and ignore all the people reporting their family >> member vanished on 9-11?
>How many people used 9-11 as a reason to disappear and take up a new >identity.
How many people used 9-11 as a reason to 'disappear' somebody else and take up a new insurance claim?
>> P.S. Yeah, the above contradicts some of what I've said before but >> things change.
>NEEDS MORE CHANGE!!!11!!!
From $20.00 SAIT - that's ten, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, and ninety-eight. Thank-you for playing.
> >>So, to repeat his request: Since you are aware of "many tragedies" in > >>which "the exact number IS known," he would like you to provide a > >>single actual example.
> > King Lear 10 > > Hamlet 8
> , which reduced King Lear's magic number to 12, and put > Hamlet 4 games back in the wildcard race.
Ouch. Hamlet at least has a cushy four game series against The Merry Wives of Windsor, while King Lear has a three day matchup with the always dangerous Henry VII.
> >Hmmm...I wonder if the yearly death data we get from the > >State has the cause of death. It would be interesting to > >see what percentage of them go gently into that good night, > >how many go by morphine drip, go instantly, go by fire, and > >by tree chipper.
>>>Stop that! You know better, even if you are allowed.
>>Since when is taunting Lots42 antiARKian?
>It's not. But you are supposed to be screaming at him to post proof >or retract.
I'll do that after he posts proof that he has actually had sex with a woman. Or, since he refused to post proof, does that mean he automatically retracted (so to speak)?
>All this patient explaining of requests and stuff is just >bad form.
On 16 Sep 2005 19:51:34 -0700, "Lots42" <lot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >> >> I'll do that after he posts proof that he has actually had sex with a >> >> woman.
>> >That's not proof of anti-gay. See Hudson, Rock.
>> You don't have to convince me. It was Lotsie who was claiming that he >> was hetero AND had had sex with a woman.
>> BW
>One doesn't have to follow the other. I could have had sex with a woman >and be bi.
That's true. If you have ever had sex with a woman.
Not to harp on the gay thing, because I know it makes you squirm for some reason, bue because your ignorance of the world is so frequently appalling, I would like to point out that you could also have had sex with a woman and be gay. Plenty of gay men have had sex with women. Not that I think you probably fall in that category.
> barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >> >> I'll do that after he posts proof that he has actually >> >> had sex with a woman.
>> >That's not proof of anti-gay. See Hudson, Rock.
>> You don't have to convince me. It was Lotsie who was >> claiming that he was hetero AND had had sex with a woman.
>> BW
> One doesn't have to follow the other. I could have had sex > with a woman and be bi.
Being bi means being attracted to both sexes (or, if you are a hater, hating both sexes and still being sexually turned on by them). Being tri is hard, as there just aren't too many 3rd sexes around. Being quad might involve other species, and that's just sick.
-- TeaLady (mari)
Sunshine is not conducive to the efficient work environment. Therefore all access to the outdoors shall be limited to those persons who perform non-productive tasks, and managers.
Mang, I ain't going back over all your tedious posts of real or faked outrage at the way the world works and your naive political opinions to pull out the most egregious ones. Stick to your doggie dialogues, and you'll be fine.
>>Mang, I ain't going back over all your tedious posts of real or faked >>outrage at the way the world works and your naive political opinions >>to pull out the most egregious ones. Stick to your doggie dialogues, >>and you'll be fine.
>>WHOO HOO I WIN!
>Why would anyone go through your old crap looking for examples of >your ignorance when you're bound to post a few new examples in the >next several days?
It's the nuance that makes me love you, Barbara. Had I been moved to express the same idea (and trust me, it would take only a miniscule dose of Exlax to move me that way), I would have said ". . . in the next few days," as opposed to "in the next several days."
Each phrase, of course, would have garnered a different response. That's what I mean by "nuance."
|
