Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Tree of Knowledge

0 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Rick Russell

unread,
Apr 16, 2003, 4:36:03 PM4/16/03
to
In article <3c65f87.03041...@posting.google.com>,
James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote:
> Well a lot of people don't like me. There are a lot of powerful
> people who probably *really* don't like me, and if it were up to them,
> I wouldn't have any math discoveries.

Can you name these powerful people?

Rick R.

Fish!

unread,
Apr 16, 2003, 9:13:46 PM4/16/03
to
In article <b7kerj$hq1$1...@joe.rice.edu>, ri...@is.rice.edu says...


Can you name their apples?

Matt Giwer

unread,
Apr 16, 2003, 9:22:29 PM4/16/03
to
James Harris wrote:
> When I was a kid being indoctrinated as a fundamentalist Christian
> (yes, Jehovah's Witnesses are fundamentalist Christians) I was puzzled
> by the story about Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and
> Bad.
>
> It never made sense to me that it would be a bad thing to learn
> knowledge.
>
> The way it was told to us from the people trying to explain it is that
> God was testing Adam and Eve's obedience.
>
> That is, it was some arbitrary test meant to see if they'd obey or
> say, yum.
>
> So Eve listens to the serpent and decides to eat, and then she
> convinces Adam, he eats, and here we are, according to the story.
>
> Now I have a new perspective on it because of my math research, and I
> now believe that the Tree in the story is Mathematics.
>
> Why would it be bad to eat?

The story is a variant on the Greek who stole fire from the gods. If
you read the rest of the story, they will eat of the tree of life and
become like us [gods].

Drop the 'original sin' baggage on the story and the serpent is the
good guy who is telling the truth while the gods do not want people to
become gods even though it was within their power to do so.

--
Are all mass graves really like the mass graves in Kosovo?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2597

s c r o o g e

unread,
Apr 17, 2003, 12:59:45 AM4/17/03
to
your dilemma reminds me of that
book by james joyce entitled
"jude the obscure"
i think it was by james joyce...
much of the story runs around a similar
dilemma, in that jude was unable to compete
with his more successful classmates and had
to drop out of college, but lived right across the
street from it...he also was "undiscovered" although
he was brilliant...i don't remember what happened
to him in the end...judes dilemma is shared by many,
not just you...harris, you've got to learn how to "compete"
successfully, and win or lose, you won't have regrets, nor
harbor animosities toward those who you might think
"control" the math world...bitterness will not get you
very far...if you have to, it may be better to become
a hermit or at least move away from the centers of
knowledge so they won't irritate you...find a little
country town and teach at a little local school, the rewards
you might harvest probably will be greater than trying to
move a rock that is immovable...your time will come...
not neccesarily your time to prove your math discoveries,
but your time for happiness and contentment...


"James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.03041...@posting.google.com...


> When I was a kid being indoctrinated as a fundamentalist Christian
> (yes, Jehovah's Witnesses are fundamentalist Christians) I was puzzled
> by the story about Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and
> Bad.
>
> It never made sense to me that it would be a bad thing to learn
> knowledge.
>
> The way it was told to us from the people trying to explain it is that
> God was testing Adam and Eve's obedience.
>
> That is, it was some arbitrary test meant to see if they'd obey or
> say, yum.
>
> So Eve listens to the serpent and decides to eat, and then she
> convinces Adam, he eats, and here we are, according to the story.
>
> Now I have a new perspective on it because of my math research, and I
> now believe that the Tree in the story is Mathematics.
>
> Why would it be bad to eat?
>

> Well a lot of people don't like me. There are a lot of powerful
> people who probably *really* don't like me, and if it were up to them,

> I wouldn't have any math discoveries. They probably wish they could
> appeal to some higher power or something, and make my math discoveries
> go away.
>
> But the problem with the truth is that it isn't picky that way.
>
> You see, someone like me finds a math proof and once I realize that
> it's true then I can go out and make posts like this one, or challenge
> mathematicians to show who they are.
>
> I get to call my proof the Hammer.
>
> It's more powerful than *any* physical object. It can be considered
> to be a mystical force, but however you consider it, it is
> overwhelming force.
>
> It doesn't tarnish. It cannot be broken. It cannot be removed from
> my hands except by my death, and even then I'd still wield it from
> your memories.
>
> The only limitation on this overwhelming force are my limitations as a
> human being in wielding it.
>
> And I think I'm doing ok.
>
> So that is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad.
>
> People like me can pick up a weapon of absolute power and wield it at
> our discretion without concern about our place in society because
> that's the nature of truth.
>
> And to people in power, truth can be a bad thing because unlike many
> of you, it doesn't decide to be false because of who they are.
>
> Often people in power can't handle the truth, especially when absolute
> power is wielded by someone like me.
>
>
> James Harris

tra...@pipeline.com

unread,
Apr 17, 2003, 2:16:19 AM4/17/03
to
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 04:59:45 GMT, "s c r o o g e" <eat@mama's.net>
wrote:

>your dilemma reminds me of that
>book by james joyce entitled
>"jude the obscure"
>i think it was by james joyce...

'twas by Thomas Hardy


Germán

David C. Ullrich

unread,
Apr 17, 2003, 6:28:23 AM4/17/03
to
On 16 Apr 2003 08:27:29 -0700, jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

[introductory "oh for heavean's sake" crap snipped]


>
>I get to call my proof the Hammer.
>
>It's more powerful than *any* physical object. It can be considered
>to be a mystical force, but however you consider it, it is
>overwhelming force.
>
>It doesn't tarnish. It cannot be broken. It cannot be removed from
>my hands except by my death, and even then I'd still wield it from
>your memories.
>
>The only limitation on this overwhelming force are my limitations as a
>human being in wielding it.
>
>And I think I'm doing ok.

You think that? You have not convinced a single person you're
right, not one. That's doing ok?

>So that is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad.
>
>People like me can pick up a weapon of absolute power and wield it at
>our discretion without concern about our place in society because
>that's the nature of truth.
>
>And to people in power, truth can be a bad thing because unlike many
>of you, it doesn't decide to be false because of who they are.
>
>Often people in power can't handle the truth, especially when absolute
>power is wielded by someone like me.
>
>
>James Harris


******************

David C. Ullrich

Message has been deleted

Alan Morgan

unread,
Apr 17, 2003, 2:51:13 PM4/17/03
to
In article <3c65f87.03041...@posting.google.com>,
James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote:

[snip]

>The problem with your thesis is that I was considered to be the
>smartest kid in my school.
>
>I had the highest SAT of my graduating class and received a full
>tuition scholarship to Vanderbilt.

So pick up a damn book and learn something about mathematics already.

What, exactly, is an object? Why is Magidin's result wrong? You haven't
answered either of these directly. You have tap-danced around both questions
with "I'll let you figure it out for yourself" or "This should make you think"
(although you don't say about what) or "This is analogous to..." (like that
matters) but you won't answer either question. This is because you are incapable
of doing so due to lack of knowledge in the mathematical arena, lack of
mathematical ability, and general fuzzy thinking.

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

Jost Ammon

unread,
Apr 17, 2003, 3:52:58 PM4/17/03
to
on Thursday 17 April 2003 20:30 James Harris wrote:

> But you see, I have the truth, which is why I have absolute power
> because the truth is absolute power.

Hmm - let's take the glass that is either half full or half empty. The power
of truth would then be the truth that embodys both perceptions of the given
reality as determined by context. The question is if absolute truth in this
complextiy is realized by more people than just one (or an insignificant,
better: influenceless, small number of people), so that the restricted
perception of truth by an influential majority re-determins a partial truth
to a new truth (reasons to go to war in Iraq would be a point in case).

In so far as you, the absolute power for the absolute truth that you may
have, have no influence about a generally restricted and therewith false
perception of the truth, lack absolute power, your above assumption turns
out to be tautologic, since its implication truth was absolute power is
untrue when truth is a human category.

Jost

--
### He who opens the windows invites the bugs in
### visit: www.openbook.gmxhome.de

### powered by Linux
--

Frances Nostrodamus

unread,
Apr 17, 2003, 11:16:59 PM4/17/03
to

"James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.03041...@posting.google.com...
> I get to call my proof the Hammer.

I was calling it that also, until reading this brilliant and concise
refutation:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F39561144

I have every reason to suspect this refutation will stand for years to come.
James, you are thoroughly misguided in your attempts to glom on the
greatness of Fermat, it's as simple as that.

Seven years of usenet trolling, and the only thing you have proven -
Usenet is a mediocre substitute for traditional peer review.

Good job, James.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Arturo Magidin

unread,
Apr 18, 2003, 6:58:12 PM4/18/03
to
In article <3c65f87.03041...@posting.google.com>,
James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote:

[.read from sci.skeptic.]

>Maybe I should also mention that as a teenager I was learning
>mathematics at Duke University as part of their summer gifted program.
>
>I taught myself trigonometry when I found I needed it to go forward in
>calculus when I was fourteen.
>
>One of my math teachers in high school noticed me doing partial
>differential equations and sought to pull me into the math world, but
>I had my eye on physics.

Since you claim that mathematic departments around the world are a
sham, given that no professional mathematician acknowledges your
genius, why should your participation in a gifted program when you
were a teenager mean anything about your mathematical qualities? You
are arguing that having degrees in mathematics doesn't mean squat,
after all...

In any case, it is apparent that you have never seen any mathematics
textbook beyond the Calculus level. Your comments about how
mathematics is done, how proofs are checked, and how students learn,
make that quite apparent.

You are like the clerk operator who has mastered the mechanics of the
abacus (in your case, basic algebra and a bit of calculus), and thinks
that this makes him an expert in accounting and tax laws.

======================================================================
"Your argument does hold for triangular cows, however."
-- John Finkbiner, in alt.atheism
======================================================================

Arturo Magidin
mag...@math.berkeley.edu

Marcus S. Turner

unread,
Apr 18, 2003, 8:55:14 PM4/18/03
to
James Harris wrote:
> amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote in message
> news:<b7mt31$rhp$1...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>...

>> In article <3c65f87.03041...@posting.google.com>,
>> James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The problem with your thesis is that I was considered to be the
>>> smartest kid in my school.
>>>
>>> I had the highest SAT of my graduating class and received a full
>>> tuition scholarship to Vanderbilt.
>>
>> So pick up a damn book and learn something about mathematics already.
>
> Maybe I should also mention that as a teenager I was learning
> mathematics at Duke University as part of their summer gifted program.
>
> I taught myself trigonometry when I found I needed it to go forward in
> calculus when I was fourteen.

Hmmm...

In Georiga in the 70's, all college-bound students learned trig at by 14.

> One of my math teachers in high school noticed me doing partial
> differential equations and sought to pull me into the math world, but
> I had my eye on physics.
>

>> What, exactly, is an object? Why is Magidin's result wrong? You
>> haven't answered either of these directly. You have tap-danced
>> around both questions with "I'll let you figure it out for yourself"
>> or "This should make you think" (although you don't say about what)
>> or "This is analogous to..." (like that matters) but you won't
>> answer either question. This is because you are incapable of doing
>> so due to lack of knowledge in the mathematical arena, lack of
>> mathematical ability, and general fuzzy thinking.
>>
>> Alan
>

> I've proven Magidin wrong rigorously on posts to alt.math.undergrad
> and sci.math which I decided were just a bit too technical for
> alt.writing and sci.skeptic though they use rather basic algebra.
>
> He has replied (rather oddly in my opinion) and I have replied back.
>
> As for objects, they aren't complicated. The idea is simply to keep
> out numbers like 1/2, while keeping in numbers like sqrt(2) by
> abstracting out what makes an integer interesting, mathematically.
>
> It's all rather simple.
>
> You're in my world as I've been "smart" my whole life.
>
> If you try to post logically, or rely on rational discourse, I will
> beat you soundly, as I've been doing to those who bother to post
> mathematics in reply to me.
>
> On the other hand, if you believe that social rules prevail, as if
> mathematics is a fashion show, and all you have to do is convince
> people that I'm wrong, as if the math doesn't matter, then the war of
> attrition will continue.
>
> And I'll win that war as well.
>
>
> James Harris

Message has been deleted

Alan Morgan

unread,
Apr 18, 2003, 9:25:17 PM4/18/03
to
In article <3c65f87.03041...@posting.google.com>,
James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote:
>amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote in message news:<b7mt31$rhp$1...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>...
>> In article <3c65f87.03041...@posting.google.com>,
>> James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >The problem with your thesis is that I was considered to be the
>> >smartest kid in my school.
>> >
>> >I had the highest SAT of my graduating class and received a full
>> >tuition scholarship to Vanderbilt.
>>
>> So pick up a damn book and learn something about mathematics already.
>
>Maybe I should also mention that as a teenager I was learning
>mathematics at Duke University as part of their summer gifted program.
>
>I taught myself trigonometry when I found I needed it to go forward in
>calculus when I was fourteen.

Good for you. I taught myself calculus at the age of about 12 (I
don't remember exactly how old I was). That didn't help much when
I took my abstract algebra class. In fact, my ass-kicking math
ability in high school translated into exactly squat for college
level math (fortunatly, I was not a math major).

>> What, exactly, is an object? Why is Magidin's result wrong? You haven't
>> answered either of these directly.
>

>I've proven Magidin wrong rigorously on posts to alt.math.undergrad
>and sci.math which I decided were just a bit too technical for
>alt.writing and sci.skeptic though they use rather basic algebra.

No, you haven't. You've claimed that he is wrong (and invoked your
usual magical conspiracy) but you haven't shown why. I'm not even
sure you know what needs to be done in order to show him wrong.

>As for objects, they aren't complicated. The idea is simply to keep
>out numbers like 1/2, while keeping in numbers like sqrt(2) by
>abstracting out what makes an integer interesting, mathematically.

That's nice. What are objects?

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

Zachary Turner

unread,
Apr 18, 2003, 10:29:31 PM4/18/03
to

"Marcus S. Turner" <msha...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:s01oa.4049$ZP....@fe06.atl2.webusenet.com...

> James Harris wrote:
> > amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote in message
> > news:<b7mt31$rhp$1...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>...
> >> In article <3c65f87.03041...@posting.google.com>,
> >> James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> The problem with your thesis is that I was considered to be the
> >>> smartest kid in my school.
> >>>
> >>> I had the highest SAT of my graduating class and received a full
> >>> tuition scholarship to Vanderbilt.
> >>
> >> So pick up a damn book and learn something about mathematics already.
> >
> > Maybe I should also mention that as a teenager I was learning
> > mathematics at Duke University as part of their summer gifted program.
> >
> > I taught myself trigonometry when I found I needed it to go forward in
> > calculus when I was fourteen.
>
> Hmmm...
>
> In Georiga in the 70's, all college-bound students learned trig at by 14.

And in Russia they start learning it at about 10.

Anyway, at 14, what is that about the age of most high school sophomores?
Umm, hello James! It's not THAT uncommon for high school sophomores to be
doing trig. I tutor an 8th grader whose entire class is doing trig. Big
deal.

You think there aren't other people learning mathematics at Duke University
gifted programs? Hell, if you want to talk about someone who's _actually_ a
prodigy, let's talk about Stephen Wolfram for a few minutes (whether you
think his book is nonsense or not), who was a professor at Princeton by the
time he was what? 20 or so? And where are you, with your "highest SAT
score" and "summer learning program"? Where are you? You're sitting around
jerking off your hammer.

Wayne Brown

unread,
Apr 18, 2003, 10:30:28 PM4/18/03
to
In alt.writing James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote:

> I've proven Magidin wrong rigorously on posts to alt.math.undergrad
> and sci.math which I decided were just a bit too technical for
> alt.writing and sci.skeptic though they use rather basic algebra.

"Rigorously?" This is beyond doubt the funniest thing James has written.
I didn't think he even *knew* that word.

--
Wayne Brown | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwb...@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"

Frances Nostrodamus

unread,
Apr 19, 2003, 12:23:12 AM4/19/03
to

"James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.03041...@posting.google.com...
> "Frances Nostrodamus" <fra...@damnus.com> wrote in message
news:<L6Kna.498003$3D1.270014@sccrnsc01>...

>
> That's fraud.
>

James, your posts are new to me, it's good I have the benefit of consulting
the google archives.

I gather your current "proof" of FLT has been finalized only recently, yet
indignantly you have been claiming to have a proof, in ever changing
versions, for the past seven years.

Let's not describe every previous claim to proof you have made as being
fraudulent. Certainly, I won't.

Let's describe these claims for what they are - foolish.

Reread http://makeashorterlink.com/?F39561144 as my prediction is this
refutation by way of parody will stand for many years.

By the way, your definition of "object" in your proof is wrong. Email me
and I'll send the correct definition.


David C. Ullrich

unread,
Apr 19, 2003, 7:16:38 AM4/19/03
to
On 18 Apr 2003 18:06:21 -0700, jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

>mag...@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote in message news:<b7pvu4$sv7$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...


>> In article <3c65f87.03041...@posting.google.com>,
>> James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> [.read from sci.skeptic.]
>>
>> >Maybe I should also mention that as a teenager I was learning
>> >mathematics at Duke University as part of their summer gifted program.
>> >
>> >I taught myself trigonometry when I found I needed it to go forward in
>> >calculus when I was fourteen.
>> >
>> >One of my math teachers in high school noticed me doing partial
>> >differential equations and sought to pull me into the math world, but
>> >I had my eye on physics.
>>
>> Since you claim that mathematic departments around the world are a
>> sham, given that no professional mathematician acknowledges your
>> genius, why should your participation in a gifted program when you
>> were a teenager mean anything about your mathematical qualities? You
>> are arguing that having degrees in mathematics doesn't mean squat,
>> after all...
>

>You clipped the information that provides context.
>
>A previous poster challenged my mathematical knowledge.
>
>I thought I'd mention some pertinent information.


>
>> In any case, it is apparent that you have never seen any mathematics
>> textbook beyond the Calculus level. Your comments about how
>> mathematics is done, how proofs are checked, and how students learn,
>> make that quite apparent.
>

>It is not apparent.

It is quite apparent, exactly as he said.

>> You are like the clerk operator who has mastered the mechanics of the
>> abacus (in your case, basic algebra and a bit of calculus), and thinks
>> that this makes him an expert in accounting and tax laws.
>

>LOL. What I am is the living embodiment of power. And even in this
>human form with its limitations and endless tendency to err, I can
>wield tools of the Absolute.

Sounding like a lunatic again...

>And so I wield that mystical Hammer, which mortals call the Proof of
>Fermat's Last Theorem.
>
>It is my perfect shield that sustains me, and my ultimate weapon
>against those who try to stand against the truth.

Yea, though you walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
you will fear no evil. For the Proof sustains...

Jesus. You must really have no idea how totally wacky this stuff
sounds.

>(Um, sorry folks, I needed a pep talk as Magidin depresses me. No
>harm done I hope. Besides I like calling the proof the Hammer. It
>feels good.)

No need to apologize - this sort of wackiness is one of the things
that keeps (some of) your fans fascinated.

Arturo Magidin

unread,
Apr 19, 2003, 5:30:22 PM4/19/03
to
In article <3c65f87.03041...@posting.google.com>,
James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote:
>mag...@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote in message news:<b7pvu4$sv7$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...

[.snip.]

>> In any case, it is apparent that you have never seen any mathematics
>> textbook beyond the Calculus level. Your comments about how
>> mathematics is done, how proofs are checked, and how students learn,
>> make that quite apparent.
>

>It is not apparent.

Not to you, since you have no frame of reference. To those of us who
have not only studied mathematics at all levels, but also taught it at
those levels, it is not only apparent, it is blindingly obvious.

Your experience in learning mathematics only extends to about the
level of Calculus. You have never seen any textbook higher than that
level.

At the Calculus level, textbooks tend to be exactly as you describe
all of mathematics to be: a list of recipes, theorems quoted but never
proven, and students told to "just believe" the results and use them
to get the answers. Students are not encouraged to wonder why a
complex result such as the Intermediate Value Theorem or the Extreme
Value Theorem are correct, and if asked, the professor will almost
certainly say that "it is too hard to get into right now; if you are
interested, you need to take a lot more courses and then you'll
see. For now just believe it and use it."


By contrast, upper division abstract algebra textbooks and classes are
simply ->not<- taught that way. Theorems are proven, in extenso, in
front of the class. Books do not quote results without proof unless
they happen to be tangents that will not be explored. Students are
encouraged not just to ask, but to challenge any and all proofs they
meet. It is simply not as you imagine it is.

[.snip.]

======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================

Arturo Magidin
mag...@math.berkeley.edu

Arturo Magidin

unread,
Apr 20, 2003, 5:44:43 PM4/20/03
to
In article <3c65f87.03041...@posting.google.com>,
James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote:
>mag...@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote in message news:<b7pvu4$sv7$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>> In article <3c65f87.03041...@posting.google.com>,
>> James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> [.read from sci.skeptic.]
>>
>> >Maybe I should also mention that as a teenager I was learning
>> >mathematics at Duke University as part of their summer gifted program.
>> >
>> >I taught myself trigonometry when I found I needed it to go forward in
>> >calculus when I was fourteen.
>> >
>> >One of my math teachers in high school noticed me doing partial
>> >differential equations and sought to pull me into the math world, but
>> >I had my eye on physics.
>>
>> Since you claim that mathematic departments around the world are a
>> sham, given that no professional mathematician acknowledges your
>> genius, why should your participation in a gifted program when you
>> were a teenager mean anything about your mathematical qualities? You
>> are arguing that having degrees in mathematics doesn't mean squat,
>> after all...
>
>You clipped the information that provides context.
>
>A previous poster challenged my mathematical knowledge.
>
>I thought I'd mention some pertinent information.

But, you see:

(1) You claim that mathematicians are "both incompetent and stupid."

(2) You claim that this also makes any study made by a student under
these mathematicians unreliable.

(3) When questioned about your mathematical knowledge, you reply that
you took instruction at Duke University.

(4) Presumably, this instruction was taken from mathematicians.

(5) Therefore, you must consider this training at least suspect: you
participated in a program run by people who are both incompetent
and stupid.

How can participating in a program run by incompetent stupid people be
a ->good<- thing? How can this information reflect well on you, given
what you assert is the "truth" about the mathematical establishment?

I don't understand how you can have this cognitive dissonance. On the
one hand, mathematicians are the scum of the earth and nothing they
say or teach can be trusted; on the other hand, you took classes from
mathematicians when you were 14 years old, and therefore your
mathematical knowledge is beyond question. But didn't you get it from
the scum of the earth? Why should your mathematical knowledge be
beyond question, if it dervies from a source which cannot be trusted?

======================================================================
"Destiny is a funny thing. Once I thought I was destined to become
Emperor of Greenland, sole monarch over its 52,000 inhabitants. Then
I thought I was destined to build a Polynesian longship in my garage.
I was wrong then, but I've got it now."
-- The Tick ("The Tick", by Ben Edlund)
======================================================================

Arturo Magidin
mag...@math.berkeley.edu

Ed Rhodes

unread,
Apr 21, 2003, 8:09:43 AM4/21/03
to
"Matt Giwer" <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:plnna.161103$j8.35...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...

Harlan Ellison - The Deathbird.


dre

unread,
Apr 25, 2003, 5:27:47 PM4/25/03
to
On 16 Apr 2003 08:27:29 -0700, jst...@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

>When I was a kid...
[snip]


wowzers. I actually caught myself giggling and doing the circle thing
while pointing at my head from this!

0 new messages