"Gentle Readers" Authenticity?
Raul Bloodworth
Given the fact people are still expressing uncertainty about the
authenticity of the recent King message to the group, via someone going by
the handle of "peng...@aol.com", I think it is appropriate to ask how the
authenticity of this post was established, so that we can resolve any
lingering doubts as to its authorship.
I feel the question is appropriate because, thus far, we've been presented
with no actual proof that it is genuine, and given the disruption it has
caused in the group, and before it is entered into any official FAQ for
absk, the least we can do is address whatever ambiguities remain.
So, how exactly *do* we know this post is for real?
--
Bryan Byun bb...@linkline.com
www.linkline.com/personal/bbyun/bryan/schmenge.html
----------------------------------------------------
"Life...it's like a box of chocolates. A cheap, thoughtless perfunctory
gift that nobody ever asks for. Unreturnable because all you ever get back
is another box of chocolates. So you're stuck with this undefinable
whipped mint crap that you mindlessly wolf down when there's nothing else
left to eat. Sure once in a while there's a peanut butter cup or an
English toffee but they're gone too fast and the taste is fleeting. You
end up with nothing but broken bits filled with hardened jelly and
teeth-shattering nuts. If you're desperate enough to eat those, all you've
got left is an empty box filled with useless brown paper wrappers."
-- Cancer Man
Janine Lott
Raul Bloodworth wrote: (concerning the authenticity of the King
Post:
> So, how exactly *do* we know this post is for real?
>
For me the word of Bev Vincent (he who has not steered us wrong
yet) is as good as gold. I trust Bev as a voice of great and
wonderous knowledge. :)
Janine
--
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us
prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, an see if we may
not eff it after all. -- Dirk Gently
Jan Junod
On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Janine Lott wrote:
> Raul Bloodworth wrote: (concerning the authenticity of the King
> Post:
>
> > So, how exactly *do* we know this post is for real?
> For me the word of Bev Vincent (he who has not steered us wrong
> yet) is as good as gold. I trust Bev as a voice of great and
> wonderous knowledge. :)
>
> Janine
I'll second that emoticon!! :) ;>
Jan
Jan Junod ju...@u.washington.edu
***************************************************************************
"We all float down here......."
***************************************************************************
Bob
Raul Bloodworth wrote:
>
> Given the fact people are still expressing uncertainty about the
> authenticity of the recent King message to the group, via someone going by
> the handle of "peng...@aol.com", I think it is appropriate to ask how the
> authenticity of this post was established, so that we can resolve any
> lingering doubts as to its authorship.
>
> I feel the question is appropriate because, thus far, we've been presented
> with no actual proof that it is genuine, and given the disruption it has
> caused in the group, and before it is entered into any official FAQ for
> absk, the least we can do is address whatever ambiguities remain.
>
>
> Bryan Byun bb...@linkline.com
I don't know what kind of proof you can expect. Bev and Charlie Fried have
both vouched for the authenticity of the post; that's good enough for me.
I have no doubt that it was a post from King to this newsgroup.
Bob
saul milligan
Janine Lott wrote:
>
> Raul Bloodworth wrote: (concerning the authenticity of the King
> Post:
>
> >
>
> yet) is as good as gold. I trust Bev as a voice of great and
> wonderous knowledge. :)
Yep. Bev has never been questioned in the past and just 'cause his
confirmation on this one is not what we may have wished to hear is no
reason to doubt the veracity of the message.
Oh, and btw, this whole thing was real dead ... whose been performing
miracles and raising the dead? Pretty silly business that!
Stevie Canuck
--
there's no one to hear you, you might as well scream
they never woke up from the american dream
they don't understand what they don't see
they look through you, and they look past me
oh you and I dancing slow, and we got nowhere to go
Melissa Etheridge
Raul Bloodworth
In article <32B253...@rogerswave.ca>, saul milligan
<mill...@rogerswave.ca> wrote:
>Yep. Bev has never been questioned in the past and just 'cause his
>confirmation on this one is not what we may have wished to hear is no
>reason to doubt the veracity of the message.
By the same token, I would assert that just because King's note said things
that some people *did* wish to hear is no reason to automatically accept
its veracity without question.
>Oh, and btw, this whole thing was real dead ... whose been performing
>miracles and raising the dead? Pretty silly business that!
Dead for you, but not for a number of people who were hurt by the post --
not just because it attacked _them_, but because it showed a side to King
that a lot of us didn't think existed. As a result of the message, some
have expressed doubt about continuing to read King altogether. I find this
saddening, and I'll admit, to a great extent I'd like to find out for my
own peace of mind. Like it or not, this post created a great deal of
anger, pain, and in some cases has broken longtime friendships. I don't
think it's too much to ask to have some solid proof, and it's rather petty
to suggest that sour grapes is the only reason to make that request.
As far as our taking Bev and Charlie's word...Charlie I don't know very
well, as he's not a regular poster here, so I can't comment. Bev, I would
be the last to doubt his King expertise, but even Bev has been wrong on
occasion. The last time we had a King posting to this group, Bev was able
to cite solid evidence as to its authenticity. This time he hasn't.
Normally, Bev's word would be good enough for me. But in this case, the
damage done by this post warrants something more than hearsay.
Jeffrey French
In <bbyun-ya02358000...@news.linkline.com>
bb...@linkline.com (Raul Bloodworth) writes:
>
>Given the fact people are still expressing uncertainty about the
>authenticity of the recent King message to the group, via someone
going by
>the handle of "peng...@aol.com", I think it is appropriate to ask how
the
>authenticity of this post was established, so that we can resolve any
>lingering doubts as to its authorship.
>
>I feel the question is appropriate because, thus far, we've been
presented
>with no actual proof that it is genuine, and given the disruption it
has
>caused in the group, and before it is entered into any official FAQ
for
>absk, the least we can do is address whatever ambiguities remain.
>
>
>Bryan Byun bb...@linkline.com
I agree one hundred percent. I have always doubted the authenticity of
the post for several reasons. Mine does not seem to be a popular
opinion. The "proof" appears to be the word of ONE of the users here
(no offense to Bev), that the other long-timers have much faith in.
This one user's "word" is based on the "word" of a friend, who either
knows someone, or knows someone who knows someone, who's "word" is also
highly regarded on the matter.
That's not quite enough proof for me, but then I don't really care much
one way or the other. If King did dictate or otherwise blass the
message, I still believe the text has been analyzed and acted upon more
than the Constitution of The United States of America.
If King DID write it, and has seen how much discussion it has raised
and how much bickering and accusational-chatter it generated, I doubt
very much that he'd ever do it again.
(sticking my neck out to be swiftly severed here)
Like The Scripture of The Bible, an awful LOT of ideas have been
derived from a few words, often for no regard to the intention of the
author. I've seen bits of it used in taglines, reducing it's meaning to
a catchy phrase without context (like certain bumper stickers that
quote lines form song lyrics or Scripture). I half-expect that someone,
somewhere, as we speak, is having the complete text silkscreened to
t-shirts, like Kurt Kobain's suicide note, to hawk at literary
conventions, nation-wide.
If King DID write it, he must feel like a God. If such a casual group
of words can cause so much thought and discussion, the man can SELL
anything--- maybe he'll consider writing those fabric tags sewn into
the belly of sofas, and the furniture business will boom.
I've seen it torn apart like the Zapruder film, "one frame at a time".
And most freightening of all, I've read people say they've actually
"changed" their behavior, or ideas, BASED ON THAT POST.
Now, what I'm wondering most of all is what all of this means, if it
turns out that King didn't write it?
Just a thought.
Merrick
Raul Bloodworth wrote:
>
> In article <32B253...@rogerswave.ca>, saul milligan
> <mill...@rogerswave.ca> wrote:
>
> >Yep. Bev has never been questioned in the past and just 'cause his
> >confirmation on this one is not what we may have wished to hear is no
> >reason to doubt the veracity of the message.
<snipped Bryan's response>
I'll contribute that just because Bev has never been questioned in the
past is no reason he should not be questioned now. To fall back on a
very old saying, "There's a first time for everything."
> >Oh, and btw, this whole thing was real dead ... whose been performing
> >miracles and raising the dead? Pretty silly business that!
>
> Dead for you, but not for a number of people who were hurt by the post > -- not just because it attacked _them_, but because it showed a side
> to King that a lot of us didn't think existed. As a result of the
> message, some have expressed doubt about continuing to read King
> altogether. I find this saddening, and I'll admit, to a great extent > I'd like to find out for my own peace of mind. Like it or not, this
> post created a great deal of anger, pain, and in some cases has broken > longtime friendships. I don't think it's too much to ask to have some > solid proof, and it's rather petty to suggest that sour grapes is the > only reason to make that request.
Right on! The issue is far from dead. It is still very much in the
forefront of many of our minds. (Some of you may not know me, but I'm a
regular lurker here who comes out of hiding infrequently when something
hits a nerve. I'd appreciate my comments not being passed off as the
rantings of some idiot who just popped in accidentally. I *do* know
what's going on.) And, in further support of Bryan's position, how can
you say the issue is dead when 10 or 15 people have just asked (and
received) copies of SK's alleged post from Bev?
If the post really is real, we're left wondering who this man, Stephen
King, is, when we thought we knew so well. My initial response to
reading the "alleged SK post" was to cringe in horror and then
immediately become very angry. It was the *tone* of the message, a tone
that seemed to say Mr. King cared not one whit what we pathetic
creatures thought/needed/wanted of him. A certain degree of my loyalty
to him, which has been constant since my highschool days some 18 years
ago, was due to the way he always made me feel special, included,
important, an integral part of the story and the telling of it. The
post literally blew me away. And it is a little bit difficult for me to
take anyone's word that the post was authentic, with no proof of such
provided.
> As far as our taking Bev and Charlie's word...Charlie I don't know
> very well, as he's not a regular poster here, so I can't comment.
> Bev, I would be the last to doubt his King expertise, but even Bev has > been wrong on occasion. The last time we had a King posting to this
> group, Bev was able to cite solid evidence as to its authenticity.
> This time he hasn't.
And my question, at the risk of being smashed, heckled, spat upon, or
simply igged, is, "Why?"
> Normally, Bev's word would be good enough for me. But in this case, > the damage done by this post warrants something more than hearsay.
Again, my full support, Bryan. I am at a loss as to what to believe.
And I also wonder why, given Bev's prompt replies to the hordes
requesting copies of the "SK post" (even under a wide variety of subject
lines, I noted he's missed few if any), he has failed to respond to this
thread. Again, why?
> --
> Bryan Byun bb...@linkline.com
> www.linkline.com/personal/bbyun/bryan/schmenge.html
<snipped sig>
Merrick
~~~%@%~~~
"The way I see it, it doesn't matter what you believe just so you're
sincere."
Charles Schulz
Ivy_Lee
On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 11:17:05 -0800, in alt.books.stephen-king you
wrote:
>Dead for you, but not for a number of people who were hurt by the post --
>not just because it attacked _them_, but because it showed a side to King
>that a lot of us didn't think existed. As a result of the message, some
>have expressed doubt about continuing to read King altogether. I find this
>saddening, and I'll admit, to a great extent I'd like to find out for my
>own peace of mind. Like it or not, this post created a great deal of
>anger, pain, and in some cases has broken longtime friendships. I don't
>think it's too much to ask to have some solid proof, and it's rather petty
>to suggest that sour grapes is the only reason to make that request.
Well, the breaking of friendships is hardly King's fault; if we allow
this issue to cause rifts in the ng, it's not something to blame HIM
for. Friends who part over such a trifle as a book-light aren't such
great friends, are they? Likewise friends who rub in advantages in an
argument such as the backing of a certain less-than-tuned- in
novelist. (There is *altogether* too much preaching 'round here,
lately. Too many of us are taking ourselves seriously. Hello! This
is a Stephen King newsgroup, for god's sake. You're at McDonald's.
Ditch the suit and tie!)
Yes, the post irritated me somewhat. It seemed a rather petty stance
for the man who writes those sappy "Gentle Reader" fore- and
afterwords and who sometimes refers to himself as our Uncle Stevie.
But take another reread of "Dedication" and think. He's not obligated
to be nice. Only to write books*, and he has certainly put forth the
effort this year. In spades. If he continues to produce, I suppose
he can be as much of a twit as he likes! I have what counts, on my
shelf, and it's not going away. Refuse to read him anymore? Hah!
Why punish myself? Certainly it won't make a dime's worth of
difference to him. I will continue to be a *constant* reader.
Ives
*And come to that, he could always do a Salinger and clam up, I
suppose. We don't really have the right to ask for that, even.
A celebrity is one who is known to many persons he is glad he doesn't know.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist.
Randy Flood
Janine Lott wrote:
> it just
> may be me, but as long as I get to read King books and the man ain't
> using my
> money to finance a major drug cartel or something bad as that, I don't
> mind
> his having harsh things to say in a post to a newsgroup.
>
> I mean come on folks, did what that post say really change anything?
>
> Janine
Ha! that's what you think. In addition to being behind every major
conspiracy of the last fifty years, Steve is not only keeping Hilter's
brain alive inside a jar, but I saw him just this week selling heroin to
three-year-olds at the Sunny Diapers Preschool down the street from me.
Randy
--
Albrecht: You, don't move!
Eric: I thought cops always said "Freeze!"
Albrecht: Well, I say don't move. Move and you're dead!
Eric: And I say I'm dead ... and I move...
saul milligan
Merrick wrote:
> If the post really is real, we're left wondering who this man, Stephen
> King, is, when we thought we knew so well.
Well, I for one never thought I knew Stephen King at all. I have read all
but one of his novels and many of his short stories and I know his work
pretty well. I also enjoy reading his intros and extros that he includes
in some of his books. But that's it. We, as readers know exactly what
King has allowed us to know of him and anyone who thinks that amounts to
"really knowing" a complex human being is naive.
Just out of curiosity, what would constitute proof? Would SK need to post
another message to the ng under his own e-mail address? Would someone
on the ng have to have an actual phone conversation with SK? How 'bout a
letter from him on his own letterhead from his own address? None of those
thigs is going to happen and anything else is hearsay.
And as a number of others have already said ... what does it matter? The
books and stories are the thing.
saul milligan
Raul Bloodworth wrote:
>
> In article <32B253...@rogerswave.ca>, saul milligan
> <mill...@rogerswave.ca> wrote:
>
> >Yep. Bev has never been questioned in the past and just 'cause his
> >confirmation on this one is not what we may have wished to hear is no
> >reason to doubt the veracity of the message.
>
>things that some people *did* wish to hear is no reason to automatically
Certainly true and truly irrelevant since my point was that we had pretty
reliable confirmation of the authenticity of the post.
> >Oh, and btw, this whole thing was real dead ... whose been performing
> >miracles and raising the dead? Pretty silly business that!
>
> Dead for you, but not for a number of people who were hurt by the post
Actually I meant "dead" in the sense that the thread had ceased to be
active and discussion of the topic was done. There was a fresh post from
someone who had been away for a while which seems to have performed the
"miracle" to which I made reference.
It is truly difficult to imagine that there is anything left to say on
the subject which has not already been hashed and rehashed (which now
that i come to think of it may be another good definition for "thread
death").
saul milligan
Kim Murrell wrote:
>Well, if it doesn't matter to you, stay out of it.I'm sorry.That sounds
>really "bitchy", and I don't really mean it that way.It's like Murielle
>said in a great post a while back, "Why don't those of us who were *not*
>involved in the original thread (you know guys, the one that began all
>this way back *before* King responded) just butt out. We haven't got
>anything constructive to add at this point, and we're just adding to the
>misery and misunderstandings."
Well the short answer to this is that people are joining the discussion/
debate because it is being posted to the ng. If some folks want to have a
private discussion of this or any other topic, e-mail is available. To
post to the ng and then suggest that participation in the ensuing
discussion should be limited is, IMO disingenuous at best.
Merrick
wayn...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <32B223...@mindspring.com>, Janine Lott
> <jal...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >Raul Bloodworth wrote: (concerning the authenticity of the King
> >Post:
> >
> >>
> >
> >yet) is as good as gold. I trust Bev as a voice of great and
> >wonderous knowledge. :)
>
> Walden Books and was handed the preview to DT4. They didn't ask
> for proof that I had bought Desperation and The Regulators, they just
> handed the book to me before I could even finish asking for it. Now,
> that doesn't *prove* that the post came from King, but it does tell me
> that whoever sent it knew what they were talking about when they
> said we'd be able to get a copy if we asked for it.
>
> Am I making any sense here at all?
Sure you are. I understand exactly what you're saying. But the trouble
is, I walked into Waldenbooks and asked for the booklet, and was told
"no, sorry." Because, the clerk added, it was their "store policy" to
only give them out when the books were bought together. So I walked
down the mall to B. Dalton's and sent my charming hubby in. He plopped
the booklet on the counter(they had them out on a shelf with Desp./TR)
along with his other purchases and the clerk rang up his stuff, tucking
the book into the bag without doing anything more than flipping it over
and seeing the "Not for Sale" printed on the back.
My point is that your experience was possibly an isolated one. It
*could* be that the young clerks in the stores really don't care who
gets it, it's just a freebie, it's Christmas, they're rushed, whatever.
I doubt that even SK has quite enough pull to make certain all clerks in
all bookstores do as he said do.
Merrick
--
"We praise a man who feels angry on the right grounds and against the
right persons and also in the right manner at the right moment and for
the right length of time."
Aristotle
Janine Lott
Kim Murrell wrote:
> However, I do understand and support Bryan's question. This has been
> very emotional for some. Some folks don't believe that post was from SK,
> or just don't *want* to believe...whatever. So proof is needed. Until
> then, this is never going to go away. It's really as simple as that.
>
I don't mean to sound bitchy, but what difference, really, does it make
if
King said it or didn't? Personally it doens't matter much to me, I'm
gonna
keep reading. I just don't understand why it's so important to get
concrete
proof on this issue. Course I could be missing some people's point, or
it just
may be me, but as long as I get to read King books and the man ain't
using my
money to finance a major drug cartel or something bad as that, I don't
mind
his having harsh things to say in a post to a newsgroup.
I mean come on folks, did what that post say really change anything?
Janine
Shooker
lwyn...@awod.com (Ivy_Lee) writes:
> Yes, the post irritated me somewhat. It seemed a rather petty stance
> for the man who writes those sappy "Gentle Reader" fore- and
> afterwords and who sometimes refers to himself as our Uncle Stevie.
> I will continue to be a *constant* reader.
Hmm, here you have brought up a portion of some of the arguments regarding
to whether this post was *really* from SK. For you see, at the end of your
message you place emphasis on being a "Constant Reader," and that is
precisely how SK has addressed the reader in his fore- and afterwords. He
has never referred to any as a "Gentle Reader" previously, and thusly that
salutation could be considered what they call in poker a "tell" regarding
the sender of the message. (ie: not SK) The "sappy" fore- and afterwords
are what we are all basing our "knowledge" of SK on, and some of us are
putting the tone of this post up against the tone of those writings in the
light of judgement.
The point of Bev's utter avoidance of this thread was also made, and it
DOES raise some issues, frankly. He manages to send anyone who asks the
post, but has avoided all discussion of its origin since his initial
confirmation. Bryan is not putting Bev down in any way when he asks for
more information regarding the original post. We all know Bev has a strong
knowledge of the King oeuvre, and he always has the facts to back them up.
This time however, he has not supported his claims other than to vaguely
affirm an unidentifiable source. Therefore I, like Bryan, am still
skeptical.
I personally find it interesting that people are HAPPY with the post
merely b/c they want to believe SK addressed us. Forgive me for not
jumping up and down with glee for that. Yes, I thought it quite cool that
he addressed us from Cornell, but I have questions regarding this post. I
like to think that SK would not address people who enjoy, and take the
time to discuss his writings, etc. without having examined all of the
information and addressed them as fans/readers/purchasers of his books,
instead of going off half-cocked and addressing us as children. For me,
that doesn't ring true with what I believe I have gleaned about the man
from the forewards, interviews, talks, and readings he has given over the
years.
There are just too many things about the post and how it was transmitted
that are questionable. I addressed some of these issues in another thread,
and won't slog through them again here now, but I think more investigating
needs to be done, and "proof" to be shown before we can take this posting
as from SK.
Shooker (who doesn't think this issue should die just yet... :) )
Kim Murrell
>
> Yes, the post irritated me somewhat. It seemed a rather petty stance
> for the man who writes those sappy "Gentle Reader" fore- and
> afterwords and who sometimes refers to himself as our Uncle Stevie.
> But take another reread of "Dedication" and think. He's not obligated
> to be nice. Only to write books*, and he has certainly put forth the
> effort this year. In spades. If he continues to produce, I suppose
> he can be as much of a twit as he likes! I have what counts, on my
> shelf, and it's not going away. Refuse to read him anymore? Hah!
> Why punish myself? Certainly it won't make a dime's worth of
> difference to him. I will continue to be a *constant* reader.
I agree. I've said before and I'll say it again...I'm not going to
stop reading his books because of that post. That's silly.
However, I do understand and support Bryan's question. This has been
very emotional for some. Some folks don't believe that post was from SK,
or just don't *want* to believe...whatever. So proof is needed. Until
then, this is never going to go away. It's really as simple as that.
Kim
--
Kim Murrell ki...@mail.warped.com
"having a pony to ride was better than no pony at all,
no matter how the weather of it's heart might lie."
Kim Murrell
In article <32B4D7...@rogerswave.ca> saul milligan <mill...@rogerswave.ca> writes:
> Kim Murrell wrote:
>
> >Well, if it doesn't matter to you, stay out of it.I'm sorry.That sounds
> >really "bitchy", and I don't really mean it that way.It's like Murielle
> >said in a great post a while back, "Why don't those of us who were *not*
> >involved in the original thread (you know guys, the one that began all
> >this way back *before* King responded) just butt out. We haven't got
> >anything constructive to add at this point, and we're just adding to the
> >misery and misunderstandings."
>
>
> Well the short answer to this is that people are joining the discussion/
> debate because it is being posted to the ng. If some folks want to have a
> private discussion of this or any other topic, e-mail is available. To
> post to the ng and then suggest that participation in the ensuing
> discussion should be limited is, IMO disingenuous at best.
I don't see how much more straightforward I can get. All I'm trying to say
is that if you don't care about the SK post or it's authenticity, it would
prolly be best to stay out of it. I follow that advice myself all the time.
There a *whole* lot of threads on absk that don't interest me at all. I
don't have anything constructive to add, so I stay out of them. It's really
not bad advice and it's certainly not "crafty."
CleveJMA
Since those of us to whom the post and its veracity or lack thereof are
meaningless have been told that we have no right to an opinion, I
will not post one.
However, I _will_ mention the following:
Pengking no longer has a AOL Profile. There is, however, a
Penguinbks.aol.
Perhaps you could direct mail to this box and see if you can get some
info.
jma
"In all these things, we are more than conquerors ..."
Janet Aldrich
Clev...@aol.com
wayn...@aol.com
>Raul Bloodworth wrote: (concerning the authenticity of the King
>Post:
>
>> So, how exactly *do* we know this post is for real?
>>
>
>For me the word of Bev Vincent (he who has not steered us wrong
>yet) is as good as gold. I trust Bev as a voice of great and
>wonderous knowledge. :)
Any doubt I may have had went out the window when I walked into
Walden Books and was handed the preview to DT4. They didn't ask
for proof that I had bought Desperation and The Regulators, they just
handed the book to me before I could even finish asking for it. Now,
that doesn't *prove* that the post came from King, but it does tell me
that whoever sent it knew what they were talking about when they
said we'd be able to get a copy if we asked for it.
Am I making any sense here at all?
Janet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*It's not that easy being green.*
Kermit the frog
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
web-server-account
Shooker (sho...@aol.com) wrote:
: The point of Bev's utter avoidance of this thread was also made, and it
: DOES raise some issues, frankly. He manages to send anyone who asks the
: post, but has avoided all discussion of its origin since his initial
: confirmation. Bryan is not putting Bev down in any way when he asks for
: more information regarding the original post. We all know Bev has a strong
: knowledge of the King oeuvre, and he always has the facts to back them up.
: This time however, he has not supported his claims other than to vaguely
: affirm an unidentifiable source. Therefore I, like Bryan, am still
: skeptical.
I just pick your post at random, Shooker, as one which contains a
representative summary of the points raised on this thread. This
isn't really a direct response to anything you've said.
Yes, I have been avoiding this and all other Gentle Reader threads. Not for
any mysterious reason other than the fact that it has bored me. In general,
I try to avoid threads which discuss SK's personality, or our perception
thereof. That's not a hard and fast rule -- occasionally I feel strongly
enough about something to make a comment, but generally I just enjoy
passing on information which comes to my attention to this newsgroup and
I also enjoy learning new things about SK from this newsgroup. Maybe that
comes as a surprise to some you -- I actually find out a lot from this
group as well as being able to pass on what I know.
I also tend to avoid threads which discuss people who are part of the absk
realm. For me, that's not the point of absk. I read 'em all, but if the gist
of a thread has mostly to do with one of the local denizens, I just move on
to the next post. Even if that someone is me -- although I do pause
occasionally to update people on my current gender status (which is, at
last report, unchanged). I can't even pretend to claim that I know any
of you, even those with whom I have had extensive e-mail exchanges, so
I won't get involved in anything that has to do with someone's
personality. Oh, I've probably said some things in the past which
someone will hastily post to rebut that, but those are the exception
rather than the rule.
I have not posted on this thread because I don't have a smoking gun to show
you. If you want absolute, unequivocal proof that SK posted the message which
is currently in the FAQ, the one from Cornell done during his "Insomnia" tour,
I could show you a photograph of him sitting at the computer reading absk.
(Well, you can't actually tell that is what he is reading, but you'd get the
point.) I could also put you in touch with a Cornell employee who was present
and part of the group that led him to the computer and showed him what to do.
Of course, if you were still skeptical, you could say that the photo was a
hoax and the Cornell employee was a plant...
In this case, I can't say anything that I haven't said already which would
convince you of the veracity of this post. It would still be my say-so, and
I'm certainly not asking anyone to believe what I say blindly. All I can do
is tell you that I know without a doubt that the post came about exactly as
the person who posted it stated. I _will_ go so far as to say that it was
not someone from Penguin marketing who told SK about the original posts to
which he was responding. This wasn't a case of Penguin saying, "You've got
to step in here and straighten these unruly kids out for us".
I can't go any further than that without violating some confidences. So,
whether you chose to believe that SK wrote that post is completely up to
each individual on the newsgroup. I'm not going to try to twist anyone's
virtual arms.
--
Bev Vincent
Houston, TX
BluesnJazz
Sorry to prolong this thread unneccessarily, but could someone post this
note from King that you call keep talking about??? I'm new to this group
& I'm intrigued! :-)
-- BnJ
Raul Bloodworth
In article <32B4D2...@rogerswave.ca>, saul milligan
<mill...@rogerswave.ca> wrote:
>Raul Bloodworth wrote:
>>By the same token,I would assert that just because King's note said
>>things that some people *did* wish to hear is no reason to automatically
>>accept its veracity without question.
>
>
>Certainly true and truly irrelevant since my point was that we had pretty
>reliable confirmation of the authenticity of the post.
Irrelevant? I'd say it was extremely relevant, and your words above are
proof of that. The issue here is of authenticity. You speak of "pretty
reliable confirmation"...in whose eyes? If you are going to suggest that
people are doubting the authenticity of the post because they didn't like
what it said, I will suggest right back at you that it's the people who
*did* agree with the post that are most likely to accept the confirmation
that was given as "pretty reliable" and leave it at that.
>> Dead for you, but not for a number of people who were hurt by the post
>
>
>Actually I meant "dead" in the sense that the thread had ceased to be
>active and discussion of the topic was done.
What you say is true -- to an extent. You'll notice that there has been a
steady stream of people popping up to ask about the King post, which Bev is
providing, and giving confirmation in the newsgroup of having done so.
While the discussion itself has trailed off, the subject is still alive.
And to restate something you snipped from my post, while the issue may have
been "dead" as far as public discussion on the ng is concerned, it has been
far from that in e-mail discussions that continue to go on. The
repercussions of that alleged King post are still being felt.
>It is truly difficult to imagine that there is anything left to say on
>the subject which has not already been hashed and rehashed (which now
>that i come to think of it may be another good definition for "thread
>death").
There is _one_ thing left to say, which I might add is the _only_ thing I
made reference to in my post.
The question of exactly _how_ we know this post to be genuine is something
that has never really been hashed or for that matter, rehashed in this
newsgroup, AFAIK. There was some initial skepticism, then Charlie and Bev
posted their messages saying they felt the post was genuine, and that was
pretty much it. I, and probably most of us, accepted these confirmations
and never gave it a second thought.
The reason I think that second thought is called for is not to doubt Bev or
Charlie's word, and I regret the ugly tone this thread has taken in
response to what was, I felt, a fairly neutral request for information.
This issue is an emotional hot button, and that is precisely why, far from
trying to prolong this thing, I would like to lay it to rest once and for
all.
There are some of you who subscribe to the "out of sight, out of mind"
philosophy, and it may well be true for you. But for others, even though
this thing has been hashed and rehashed and discussed to death, the effect
and the emotions resulting from it have not gone away. Yes, I am one of
those. I'm not completely altruistic here as I'd like some answers, too.
I'd like some closure to this thing, and I'm sure others do, too. That's
why I posted my question. If it bothered some of you who don't want to
look at this stuff anymore...that's what a kill-file is for.
Raul Bloodworth
In article <32B45C...@aps.anl.gov>, Randy Flood <fl...@aps.anl.gov> wrote:
>Janine Lott wrote:
>> it just
>> may be me, but as long as I get to read King books and the man ain't
>> using my
>> money to finance a major drug cartel or something bad as that, I don't
>> mind
>> his having harsh things to say in a post to a newsgroup.
>>
>> I mean come on folks, did what that post say really change anything?
>>
>> Janine
>Ha! that's what you think. In addition to being behind every major
>conspiracy of the last fifty years, Steve is not only keeping Hilter's
>brain alive inside a jar, but I saw him just this week selling heroin to
>three-year-olds at the Sunny Diapers Preschool down the street from me.
No, that was John Saul. King was the guy running the three card monty
table across the street.
Raul Bloodworth
In article <32B4D5...@rogerswave.ca>, saul milligan
<mill...@rogerswave.ca> wrote:
>Well, I for one never thought I knew Stephen King at all. I have read all
>but one of his novels and many of his short stories and I know his work
>pretty well. I also enjoy reading his intros and extros that he includes
>in some of his books. But that's it. We, as readers know exactly what
>King has allowed us to know of him and anyone who thinks that amounts to
>"really knowing" a complex human being is naive.
Well good for you! You are clearly a model of adult reasoning and
perception and I'm sure most of us yearn for the day when we can shed our
own childish naivete and join your exalted ranks.
>Just out of curiosity, what would constitute proof? Would SK need to post
>another message to the ng under his own e-mail address? Would someone
>on the ng have to have an actual phone conversation with SK? How 'bout a
>letter from him on his own letterhead from his own address? None of those
>thigs is going to happen and anything else is hearsay.
Everyone has a different standard of proof. Some people wouldn't be
satisfied until King himself showed up at their front door with a signed
and notarized affidavit certifying the authenticity of the message. Others
are willing to believe in its authenticity based on nothing more than
hearsay.
My own standard falls somewhere in between. I'd be satisfied if either
Charlie or Bev simply told us why *he* is so sure that it's genuine. I'd
be completely satisfied if I received a letter from King's office verifying
the message's authorship. I've sent a letter asking for that, but of
course I can hardly count on a response, which is why I'm also making this
request.
>And as a number of others have already said ... what does it matter? The
>books and stories are the thing.
What does it matter? The answer is as it has always been: it doesn't
matter. To you. To others who ask that question. Yet you insist on
carping and sniping at those to whom it _does_ matter. Just because you
don't care about something is no reason to go poking at people who do care.
Raul Bloodworth
In article <32B4D7...@rogerswave.ca>, saul milligan
<mill...@rogerswave.ca> wrote:
>Kim Murrell wrote:
>
>>Well, if it doesn't matter to you, stay out of it.I'm sorry.That sounds
>>really "bitchy", and I don't really mean it that way.It's like Murielle
>>said in a great post a while back, "Why don't those of us who were *not*
>>involved in the original thread (you know guys, the one that began all
>>this way back *before* King responded) just butt out. We haven't got
>>anything constructive to add at this point, and we're just adding to the
>>misery and misunderstandings."
>
>
>Well the short answer to this is that people are joining the discussion/
>debate because it is being posted to the ng. If some folks want to have a
>private discussion of this or any other topic, e-mail is available. To
>post to the ng and then suggest that participation in the ensuing
>discussion should be limited is, IMO disingenuous at best.
If I stumble across a debate regarding union practices in the Czech and
Slovak Republics, I'm likely not to step in and offer my own incisive
analysis, because I really don't care and it doesn't affect my life
directly. I have the *right* to jump in and post a 100-line diatribe on
the subject, but whatever I post will effectively be noise, unhelpful to
anyone. If someone then asks me to butt out, I'm certainly not going to
demand that they then restrict their conversation to e-mail because they're
"limiting" their discussion and desiring a "private" discussion.
This is a public discussion, open to all interested parties, including a
lot of lurkers who may care about this issue, for whom this issue may in
fact matter, but who wouldn't know this discussion was going on at all if
it were restricted to e-mail. Anyone, including those who have no interest
whatsoever in the subject, has an equal right to post an opinion. But that
doesn't mean everyone *should*. I think that is all Kim was trying to say.
Kim Murrell
In article <19961216134...@ladder01.news.aol.com> clev...@aol.com (CleveJMA) writes:
> Since those of us to whom the post and its veracity or lack thereof are
> meaningless have been told that we have no right to an opinion, I
> will not post one.
I suppose that's directed at me...
I never said you didn't have a right to an opinion. I mean, really...
where in my posts did I say, "You can't *have* an opinion on this."?
I didn't. I simply made the suggestion that if you don't care about
the SK post, or have anything more constructive than "Why are you raising
a dead issue?; Why do you care? I don't" and the like that it would be best
for *everyone* if you stayed out of it. It's only going to turn an already
volitile issue into a flame war...and none of us want that.
> However, I _will_ mention the following:
>
> Pengking no longer has a AOL Profile. There is, however, a
> Penguinbks.aol.
> Perhaps you could direct mail to this box and see if you can get some
> info.
Now see, that is wonderful information. Very constructive and helpful.
Thank you for posting it.
Merrick
Al Collum III wrote:
>
> Merrick,
>
> I don't think King really cares if people get the DT IV preview without
> buying anything else! He's almost guaranteed sales of the new Dark Tower
> from all the people who want the booklet, so why should he care?
>
> I think he would encourage giving it away without any questions!
>
> AL
You may be right, but then again, you may be told, "Sorry Chollie," as I
was in my first attempt. Just a reminder that the supposed post by King
clearly implied that asking for both the light and the booklet was being
greedy. Based on that, if the post was authentic, he might not be so
quick to hand out the booklets as you assume.
My point (in the prev. post) was this: the so-called King post said he'd
make sure you could get the booklet with your proof of purchase for the
two books. Janet believed the post was authentic (King's) because she
did this successfully. The book clerks obviously don't care that much
one way or the other, if you find the right clerk. Janet's success in
getting the booklet with no hassels, then, is not necessarily a result
of King's (alleged) guarantee in the post.
saul milligan
Raul Bloodworth wrote:
>
> In article <32B4D2...@rogerswave.ca>, saul milligan
> <mill...@rogerswave.ca> wrote:
>>Certainly true and truly irrelevant since my point was that we had pretty
>>reliable confirmation of the authenticity of the post.
>
>Irrelevant? I'd say it was extremely relevant, and your words above are
>proof of that. The issue here is of authenticity. You speak of "pretty
>reliable confirmation"...in whose eyes? If you are going to suggest that
>people are doubting the authenticity of the post because they didn't
>like what it said, I will suggest right back at you that it's the people
>who *did* agree with the post that are most likely to accept the
>confirmation that was given as "pretty reliable" and leave it at that.
That is a remarkable leap of illogic. Those who accept the confirmation
as reliable are likely those who see no reason to change their view of
the source just 'cause the message that has been confirmed is
unappetizing.
>>Actually I meant "dead" in the sense that the thread had ceased to be
>>active and discussion of the topic was done.
>
>What you say is true -- to an extent.You'll notice that there has been a
>steady stream of people popping up to ask about the King post which Bev
>is providing, and giving confirmation in the newsgroup of having done
>so.
>While the discussion itself has trailed off, the subject is still alive.
Interest in reading King's post is alive and well for those who have not
yet seen it. Interest in the _discussion_ of the post had no life left
until the recent post by the individual who had been away, which was
immediately followed by a post questioning the authenticity of the King
post.
> >It is truly difficult to imagine that there is anything left to say on
> >the subject which has not already been hashed and rehashed (which now
> >that i come to think of it may be another good definition for "thread
> >death").
>
>There is _one_ thing left to say, which I might add is the _only_ thing
>I made reference to in my post.
>
>The question of exactly how we know this post to be genuine is something
>that has never really been hashed or for that matter, rehashed in this
>newsgroup, AFAIK.
Well ... like I said in another post ... short of someone actually
speaking with or corresponding directly with Stephen King anything else
would be hearsay. I doubt very much that we are likely to get that kind
of direct confirmation but maybe someone who feels it important to know
beyond a shadow of a doubt would like to write to King and ask.
saul milligan
This post is a just a note to say I am outta this thread. Yep I can hear
the cheers already.
Carol ... I doubt if you will see this since I am pretty sure you have
"k-f'd" me but feel free to call me the "H" word anytime you like ... you
can even say it out loud if you want to. And for anyone like Bryan who
needed to get a dictionary or whatever to figure out Carol's reference
... the "H" word in this case is "hypocrite". Carol thinks of me in those
terms ... I actually expected to see the words "green and mould"
following the dreaded "H" word. <shrug>
It is easy to call someone a hypocrite when you twist their words and
place unintended meanings on them. And that is an easy thing to do in a
forum like this where the printed word is all.
Stevie Canuck
--
Yes the world is the best place of all
...
but then right in the middle of it
comes the smiling mortician.
L. Ferlinghetti
Shooker
Bev writes:
<<If you want absolute, unequivocal proof that SK posted the message which
is currently in the FAQ, the one from Cornell done during his "Insomnia"
tour,
I could show you a photograph of him sitting at the computer reading absk.
(Well, you can't actually tell that is what he is reading, but you'd get
the
point.) I could also put you in touch with a Cornell employee who was
present
and part of the group that led him to the computer and showed him what to
do.
Of course, if you were still skeptical, you could say that the photo was a
hoax and the Cornell employee was a plant...>>
I know you are just posting this for everyone's general knowledge Bev, I
just wanted to clarify that my questions are with the second post, not the
first. And I know you addressed that later on....
hmmm, the photo was a hoax - probably taken while road-testing the "Word
Processor of the Gods" - and the Cornell employee was a plant - ficus no
doubt. Someone call Oliver Stone!!! <G>
Shooker
Raul Bloodworth
In article <594ln3$d...@uuneo.neosoft.com>, b...@msc.com wrote:
>Okay, we'll play the game of semantics. I said, "I'm certainly not asking
>anyone to believe what I say blindly". Let me amend that to say, "I am not
>INSISTING that anyone believe what I say." Believe it if you choose to.
>Don't believe it if you choose not to. I quite frankly don't care whether
>anyone believes it or not. It's not going to hurt my feelings one little
>bit either way. You are free to attribute whatever reliability you want
>to what I said. I'm not going to spend my days and nights trying to
>convince anyone one way or the other.
My original request being for more information, I'll take this as a "no."
No one is asking you to _care_ one way or another. All _I'm_ asking for is
some backup to a claim you made that was completely unsupported with facts.
If your attitude towards collaboration of claims of fact is as cavalier as
you say, then fine, I accept that. There's no need to get defensive about
such a simple matter.
>If I had said nothing at all and let the skeptics insist that this was not
>a real post from SK, then there would not have been all of this controversy
>and hurt feelings over the post, because no one would have believed that it
>was genuine.
A good point. Given that the post accomplished absolutely nothing but to
create controversy and hurt feelings, whatever its authenticity, perhaps
you would have done better to simply let it pass.
> I knew that it was genuine, and I said so, just 'cos I'm a
>smart-ass and I can't stand to let something incorrect go unchallenged.
>Take it for what it's worth.
I'm trying to look at this objectively. Objectively speaking, if someone
makes a claim of authenticity, and it is known that that someone has
personal feelings that create the possibility of a conflict of interest (no
matter how slim), then I would expect that the standard of proof be raised
by some degree from wherever it is, simply to protect one's credibility.
That's why it's hard for me to simply accept your word in this, because in
this one instance, your word is somewhat tainted by your personal views.
Obviously this is meaningless to you since you've already made it clear
that you don't give a shit whether anyone believes you or not, but I hope
you can at least understand _why_ the request is being made in the first
place.
>I've done all I am willing to do. Change my above quote to read "I won't
>go any further because to do so in any would reveal confidences that I
>feel obligated to maintain."
Well, I have to say I didn't really expect any other answer from you.
Given your previous dismissive comments regarding the people who were
targets of King's alleged post, I would not really have expected you to go
out on any limbs for their sake. In your place I'd probably do the same
thing -- though I'd probably catch more flak for it.
>Pretend I never said anything at all if you would rather.
Would that I could...my life would be a sunnier place for sure if nothing
had ever been posted. Funny, but the ironic thing about all this is that
this alleged King post, which was intended to shut people up, ended up
creating about a hundred times more of a clamor than if nothing had been
said. Using the metaphor of the post, it seems that spanking the whining
baby only succeeded in causing the whole nursery to break out crying. My
own didies have become rather badly soiled in this, I'm afraid. Baby
Wipes, anybody?
>See y'all on another thread somewhere...
Well, in light of the fact that one of the two people who claimed to have
confirmation of the post won't give with the evidence, and the other
remains unheard from, as well as any others out there who may have
definitive (or even substantive) information in this regard, I see no
reason to continue posting in this thread, either. Despite claims to the
contrary, I have no particular interest in prolonging this issue. I may
follow up with the odd post here and there, but I'm basically giving up on
my search for truth, as there is precious little to be found here.
Um, I think there's a new "King's worst book" debate brewing...who's up for
another acrimonious, endless shoutfest resulting in another score or so of
shattered relationships, bruised feelings, and countless wasted hours?
C'mon, what a bunch of wet blankets...sheesh.......
FireDancer
Shooker wrote:
>
> There are just too many things about the post and how it was transmitted
> that are questionable. I addressed some of these issues in another thread,
> and won't slog through them again here now, but I think more investigating
> needs to be done, and "proof" to be shown before we can take this posting
> as from SK.
>
> Shooker (who doesn't think this issue should die just yet... :) )
Yeah, and since when has Steve used a crappy word like cholly? I mean
what is a cholly? Does anyone know?
Dean
--
"I could give a shit about
my aunt's video tapes." Bridget Fonda
============================
| Lucas Buck Made Me Do It |
============================
Kim Murrell
>
> This is a public discussion, open to all interested parties, including a
> lot of lurkers who may care about this issue, for whom this issue may in
> fact matter, but who wouldn't know this discussion was going on at all if
> it were restricted to e-mail. Anyone, including those who have no interest
> whatsoever in the subject, has an equal right to post an opinion. But that
> doesn't mean everyone *should*. I think that is all Kim was trying to say.
>
Thank you, Bryan. That's it exactly.
Janine Lott
Srinath Sridevan wrote:
>
> Janine Lott (jal...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> (snip)
> > Janine
> (OFF _ TOPIC)
> Does the "Dirk Gently" at the foot of your post have anything to
> do with the DIRK GENTLY'S HOLISTIC DETECTIVE AGENCY, a book by Douglas
> Adams (of Hitchhiker's .. fame) ?
Yep, one of my favorite books and certainly one of my most favorite
characters.
David Christensen
In article <32B6D0...@is.co.za>, de...@is.co.za wrote:
> Yeah, and since when has Steve used a crappy word like cholly? I mean
> what is a cholly? Does anyone know?
I've always heard the phrase as "solly, Cholly," a phonetic transcription
of a New York pronunciation of Charlie. So he's saying "sorry, Charlie"
except in a dialectic form.
Not to be a stab here in my first post here, but just because you haven't
heard of a word or phrase before, does that mean that it doesn't exist?
David Christensen
Carol Clements
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:54:36 -0800, FireDancer <de...@is.co.za> wrote:
>Yeah, and since when has Steve used a crappy word like cholly? I mean
>what is a cholly? Does anyone know?
Oh thank you for asking that! I haven't a f**king clue!!
Carol.
*************************************************************
Any new venture goes through the following stages:
enthusiasm, complication, disillusionment, search for
the guilty, punishment of the innocent, and decoration
of those who did nothing.
Anonymous.
Carol Clements
On 16 Dec 1996 23:24:19 GMT, w...@pcjfn.msc.com (web-server-account)
wrote:
Bev e-mailed me his response to Shooker, which was meant to be his
"last word" and now we have another "last word" so I'm glad I waited
to see it on the group.
First of all Bev, thank you for keeping me informed of your first
post. Net blindness is frustrating, and as I was involved I was
grateful that I could see what was going on. Posts are trickling in
now, but the first ones never arrived on my server.
Secondly, I appreciate getting any kind of response. I really didn't
expect anything at all.
Thirdly, I totally respect the need to protect confidences. It's a
shame that some way can't be worked out, of those confidences being
protected, and a little more solid evidence provided for those who
need it, but....
I only have one part to comment on...and I don't expect a response of
any kind, but I can't let this go.
>Pretend I never said anything at all if you would rather.
It's this. You see that's like telling a woman who's just discovered
her husband boffing another woman in their marital bed to pretend she
didn't see it. Really, it is. It's a totally useless and insulting
thing to say. I think it's unlikely that you'd un-say it, like you
can't or won't un-say or verify in any way that would be acceptable to
some of the people here, the veracity of the "King" thing, but I want
it on record that I find this particular sentence insulting.
Other than that Bev, nothing has changed. The respect that I have for
your knowledge and generosity in sharing that knowledge remains.
Good day, and a Happy Christmas,
Carol Clements
On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:01:39 -0800, bb...@linkline.com (Raul
Bloodworth) wrote:
>Agreed. This issue _should_ die, make no mistake about it, but it should
>at least have a decent burial. :-)
If I'm invited Bryan, I'll try to make it to the funeral, just so long
as no-one brings chrysanthemums...oh, and maybe we should bury the
spade too, so no-one can dig this up again...or shall we just be
irritating and have an anniversary dig once a year?
Apart from the chyrsanthemums, which are non-negotiable, I'm open to
any suggestions...number of syllables used in said suggestions are
optional in this case.
Carol.
PS How do you bury a spade? With another spade? JCB? What?
Carol Clements
On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:03:49 -0800, bb...@linkline.com (Raul
Bloodworth) wrote:
>In article <32B647...@rogerswave.ca>, saul milligan
><mill...@rogerswave.ca> wrote:
This bit is Steve:
>>This post is a just a note to say I am outta this thread. Yep I can hear
>>the cheers already.
Is that an invitation?
>>Carol ... I doubt if you will see this since I am pretty sure you have
>>"k-f'd" me but feel free to call me the "H" word anytime you like ... you
>>can even say it out loud if you want to.
You sure about that Steve? You're actually *inviting* me to call you
names? I seem to remember a great long post from you about
name-calling. What's this? Do I have to use words of more than two
syllables before I can call you names? It's okay to use "solipsistic"
when talking to one person but not "butt head" when talking to
another? Can we have a list of Commandments According to Steve
Milligan, so we have no further confusion in the New Year? Pretty
please? I'm serious about this. I'd actually like to get to a place
where some level of discussion is possible with you.
>> And for anyone like Bryan who
>>needed to get a dictionary or whatever to figure out Carol's reference
>>... the "H" word in this case is "hypocrite". Carol thinks of me in those
>>terms ... I actually expected to see the words "green and mould"
>>following the dreaded "H" word. <shrug>
Good to know you know the contents of my mind so well Steve. What I
think of you is a mystery to me, so how you can be so clear about it
is beyond me. I don't think you're a hypocrite. I think you use
hypocritical arguments to score points off people. I used your own
words to demonstrate that. I apologise for my memory. Where my King
books are concerned, it lets me down, but in matters like this it digs
at me. I find myself looking at the words you churn out so often and
saying "Huh?".
>>It is easy to call someone a hypocrite when you twist their words and
>>place unintended meanings on them. And that is an easy thing to do in a
>>forum like this where the printed word is all.
Well, Janet Aldrich twisted my words good and proper with that child
molesting versus author ire thing, but I didn't call her a hypocrite.
I realised she'd got the wrong end of the stick and I explained it.
There's a very distinct difference between using an argument *against*
someone, then using the same argument *yourself* to score points. And
before you say it, yes, we've *all* done that at some time or another.
You just seem to do it more than most...
This bit's Bryan:
>True, but in your case no one has had to do that. All I've seen anyone do
>is throw your own words back at you. If you feel your words are being
>twisted, all I can say is that perhaps you ought to be more careful with
>your words in the first place. Carol very accurately pointed out things
>you said that totally contradict sentiments you've expressed in the past.
>This isn't the first time it's happened, and you cannot blame every
>instance on twisted words and unintended meanings.
Tiring business this isn't it?
>Who among us is immune to self-contradiction? But I think the ideal
>response -- not always the realistic one, given human failings, but the
>most mature and self-aware -- is to recognize and admit these instances
>when they occur, rather than getting defensive and making excuses for
>oneself.
Here I am waving my hand in the air. To dredge up another memory, I
was in on the Eileene/Value thing, and I realised after Jon Skeet
pointed out the hypocrisy there, and I argued with him about it, that
he was right, and after the God thread, I wrote to Jon and told him
this - that after a long period of thought about it, I *had* been
hypocritical in that Value thread. I didn't see it at the *time* -
too wrapped up in it all I suppose - but *afterwards*? Yup.
I saw that Value thread as one long attack on one person....started by
you Steve, because you didn't like what Eileene said. For someone who
likes to tell people to "get this off the newsgroup" or "not dig up
dead threads" that's kind of laughable to me. It's okay to have it on
the newsgroup, dirty as it is, when it suits *you*, but when it
doesn't suit *you* it's "take it to e-mail"? You see, that's just one
more in a long list of instances like this that just pop freely into
my mind - totally unbidden - when I think about you and that "H"
thing.
You made a point of saying there was no name-calling in that thread,
but you used words like "arrogant" and "elitist" constantly, and so
did I. Okay, okay three syllables in each word so it fits nicely into
the Commandments According to Steve Milligan. Whoops!
<snipperoo>
> I say this as someone
>who has both enthusiastically agreed and vehemently disagreed with you in
>the past, all the while recognizing you as a person of intelligence and
>passion.
That goes ditto for me. If pointing out errors (as I see them) in
your arguments causes you problems, then I humbly apologise Steve. I
never for one moment wanted any of this to go as far as it did, but
you really ought to try opening your eyes once in a while. That's a
suggestion, not an attack. I echo many of the sentiments in Bryan's
post. I don't *try* to find hypocrisy in your arguments. I have
better things to do with my time quite frankly. They're just *there*
staring me in the face.
Carol.
Carol Clements
On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:03:53 -0800, bb...@linkline.com (Raul
Bloodworth) wrote:
They're filtering through. I'll never have the first lot, but I'm
starting to get these...
>Irrelevant? I'd say it was extremely relevant, and your words above are
>proof of that. The issue here is of authenticity. You speak of "pretty
>reliable confirmation"...in whose eyes? If you are going to suggest that
>people are doubting the authenticity of the post because they didn't like
>what it said, I will suggest right back at you that it's the people who
>*did* agree with the post that are most likely to accept the confirmation
>that was given as "pretty reliable" and leave it at that.
Easier to accept if it doesn't affect you, or if you're the type of
person who hangs on Mr King's every word. Hard to accept if it's
directed at you, or even if you *think* it's directed at you, or if
you choose to be offended by it. Either way, closure is required. I
have taken a course of action regarding that post, and I'd like to
know whether that course of action is a valid one or not. Until I do,
or until I get totally bored with it and change my mind (my
prerogative) that's my choice in the matter. I'd like to know for
sure that's all.
>What you say is true -- to an extent. You'll notice that there has been a
>steady stream of people popping up to ask about the King post, which Bev is
>providing, and giving confirmation in the newsgroup of having done so.
>While the discussion itself has trailed off, the subject is still alive.
All the more galling in fact due to the fact that it is being gaily
e-mailed without a shred of evidence to back it up - other than
hearsay and assertion. The source of the hearsay is an excellent one,
but since we don't know the origin, we can never know for sure...
>And to restate something you snipped from my post, while the issue may have
>been "dead" as far as public discussion on the ng is concerned, it has been
>far from that in e-mail discussions that continue to go on. The
>repercussions of that alleged King post are still being felt.
I've equated this to an earthquake and resulting
aftershock...hopefully someone else will provide a better analogy.
Storm in a tea cup perhaps? Oh yes, they've all been trundled out...
>There is _one_ thing left to say, which I might add is the _only_ thing I
>made reference to in my post.
>
>The question of exactly _how_ we know this post to be genuine is something
>that has never really been hashed or for that matter, rehashed in this
>newsgroup, AFAIK. There was some initial skepticism, then Charlie and Bev
>posted their messages saying they felt the post was genuine, and that was
>pretty much it. I, and probably most of us, accepted these confirmations
>and never gave it a second thought.
It certainly applies to me. I accepted it. Totally.
>The reason I think that second thought is called for is not to doubt Bev or
>Charlie's word, and I regret the ugly tone this thread has taken in
>response to what was, I felt, a fairly neutral request for information.
>This issue is an emotional hot button, and that is precisely why, far from
>trying to prolong this thing, I would like to lay it to rest once and for
>all.
Yup. This is the crazy thing. It's almost implied that we're saying
Bev is lying, and we're not. We're asking *how* we can be sure - even
though we accept it to be the truth. Because what we have here is a
missing person. Don't know if the person is alive or dead, and if the
person is dead, we have no body to bury. The only thing we're certain
of is the missing part. Make sense? Probably not.
>There are some of you who subscribe to the "out of sight, out of mind"
>philosophy, and it may well be true for you. But for others, even though
>this thing has been hashed and rehashed and discussed to death, the effect
>and the emotions resulting from it have not gone away. Yes, I am one of
>those. I'm not completely altruistic here as I'd like some answers, too.
>I'd like some closure to this thing, and I'm sure others do, too. That's
>why I posted my question. If it bothered some of you who don't want to
>look at this stuff anymore...that's what a kill-file is for.
Closure is the word really. That's the key. The daft thing is,
people think that the major issue here is the hurt caused. It really
isn't. That didn't last long, and humour quickly followed. The issue
is the resulting behaviour. Many people will not change their
behaviour or their attitude, no matter what happens. That's fine,
that's their choice. Others might choose the route I have taken -
financial sanction - drop in the ocean, but never mind. Either way,
people need to know how to deal with this for their own peace of mind.
wayn...@aol.com
>Shooker wrote:
>
>
>>
>> There are just too many things about the post and how it was
transmitted
>> that are questionable. I addressed some of these issues in another
thread,
>> and won't slog through them again here now, but I think more
investigating
>> needs to be done, and "proof" to be shown before we can take this
posting
>> as from SK.
>>
>> Shooker (who doesn't think this issue should die just yet... :) )
>
>Yeah, and since when has Steve used a crappy word like cholly? I mean
>what is a cholly? Does anyone know?
>
>Dean
*Cholly* is what *Charlie* sounds like when you're from Maine
<or Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island
for that matter>. If it had said *Sorry Charlie*, I would have had
my proof that it *wasn't* Stephen King!
<buttin' back out now>
Janet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Folks, don't drink the water. This
condition appears to be contagious!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
Murielle L. Sey
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, David Christensen wrote:
> In article <32B6D0...@is.co.za>, de...@is.co.za wrote:
> > Yeah, and since when has Steve used a crappy word like cholly? I mean
> > what is a cholly? Does anyone know?
>
> I've always heard the phrase as "solly, Cholly," a phonetic transcription
> of a New York pronunciation of Charlie. So he's saying "sorry, Charlie"
> except in a dialectic form.
Well, as far as I can remember, I first heard "Cholly" in Shaw's
Major Barabra (Oooow! I LoVe that play!), where it was refered to as
slang and was used as a diminutive of Charly or Charles.
Hugs
Murielle
saul milligan
Carol Clements wrote ...
... a long post in response to my post in which I quit the "Authenticity"
thread.
I have nothing to offer in response but I did not want any one to think I
had not seen the post.
The WRENN Family
Carol Clements wrote:
>
>>FireDancer wrote:
>
> >Yeah, and since when has Steve used a crappy word like cholly? I mean
> >what is a cholly? Does anyone know?
>
>
Yep, as you have no doubt read from subsequent posts, *Sorry Cholly* is
just a dialectic way of saying *Sorry, Charlie*...a reference to an
old SUNKIST Tuna ad of yore. When Charlie the Tuna was rejected as NOT
being the BEST Tuna, a SUNKIST reps. voice was heard in the background
saying : Sorry, Charlie...only the best tuna gets to be SUNKIST!
Loaded with a vast array of useless information,
Zorina
(psssst, it's freezin in Hawaii...it was 58 degrees yesterday! Brrrr!
Goosebumps...or as the local lingo would have it *Chicken Skin*) :)
Murielle L. Sey
On 18 Dec 1996, PSchnei552 wrote:
> Actually, as you point out, the original (and correct) phrasing is "Solly,
> Cholly."
>
> It comes from WWII, and was a stereotypical way to describe Japanese
> people talking. Supposedly, they referred to Americans as "Charlie," but
> they couldn't pronounce their 'r's; hence, when they had American soldiers
> cornered, and they were pleading for mercy, the response (according to the
> stereotype, of course) was "Solly, Cholly."
>
> "Sorry, Cholly" just doesn't cut it, of course. It loses all effect.
>
> Solly, Stevie!
Hi Again,
Well actually, it wasn't me who gave the "Solly Cholly" account of
the word Cholly... it was the poster before me (sorry, once again I've
forgotten someone's name... (blush)).
However, that explanation doesn't cut it with me because I've just
hauled out one of my copies of Major Barbara (GBS) and it states the play
was written in 1905 which would date "Cholly" quite some time before WW11.
(From Act One)
"Barbara: Are Cholly and Dolly to come in?
Lady Britomart: (forcibly) Barbara: I will not have Charles
called Cholly: THe vulgarity of it positively makes me ill.
Barbara: It's all right, mother: Cholly is quite correct
nowadays. Are they to come in?"
Perhaps what you describe was used during WW11, but it was not the
origin of Cholly for Charles. That has to be at least *before* 1905, for
it to have been common enough to be used as a colloquialism in a stageplay
by a popular playright.
Hugs
Murielle
P.S. I'm sorry! I didn't realize from what I received from you in email
that you'd *posted* as well. Next time I receive something from you
I'll go on the assumption that you've already posted and post myself,
unless you notify me otherwise. Huggles!
A Large, Vibrating Egg
In article <32b709f...@news.demon.co.uk>, ca...@clems.demon.co.uk
(Carol Clements) wrote:
>>Agreed. This issue _should_ die, make no mistake about it, but it should
>>at least have a decent burial. :-)
>
>If I'm invited Bryan, I'll try to make it to the funeral, just so long
>as no-one brings chrysanthemums...oh, and maybe we should bury the
>spade too, so no-one can dig this up again...or shall we just be
>irritating and have an anniversary dig once a year?
>
>Apart from the chyrsanthemums, which are non-negotiable, I'm open to
>any suggestions...number of syllables used in said suggestions are
>optional in this case.
I think there are places in Nevada where these things can go. Abandoned
ICBM bunkers...Area 50 or 52, next door to the aliens, someplace like that.
I figure the radioactive half-life of this thread is at least 300
years...or until the next DT book comes out, whichever comes first.
>PS How do you bury a spade? With another spade? JCB? What?
In this case, wouldn't cremation be a more appropriate sendoff? :)
* * *
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any
other invention in human history, with the possible
exception of handguns and tequila." -- Mitch Radcliffe
Chris Trainor
wayn...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <32B820...@world.std.com>, Chris Trainor
> <ctra...@world.std.com> writes:
>
> >> *Cholly* is what *Charlie* sounds like when you're from Maine
> >> <or Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island
> >> for that matter>. If it had said *Sorry Charlie*, I would have had
> >> my proof that it *wasn't* Stephen King!
> >>
> >> <buttin' back out now>
> >>
> >> Janet
>
> >
> >Chahlie, go pahk the cah in Hahvahd yahd."
>
> <Buttin' back in>
>
> You're right Chris, it does! You've got Harvard all wrong, though.
> It's only the *uppercrust* Bostonians who say Hahvahd. For the
> rest of us poor folk, it's *Hahvid*. Or is *my* accent getting in
> the way of things?
>
> Janet
You are 100% correct. That is how I say it also, I just didn't spell it
right. (I'm from Woburn and like everyone else there, I pronounce it
Woobin.)
--
________________
Do you believe in Macintosh? Please check out
<http://www.evangelist.macaddict.com/> and join the EvangeList mailing
list by sending an email to <evang...@macway.com>.
Carol Clements
On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 19:16:05 -0800, Kathleen Wells
<kw4...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Carol Clements wrote:
>
>> If I'm invited Bryan, I'll try to make it to the funeral, just so long
>> as no-one brings chrysanthemums
>
>
>Hey, I *like* chrysanthemums!
Sorry Kate. It's nothing personal. It's a really long story so I
don't want to bother with it. If you bring them, I won't come. Let
me know how the send-off goes though okay?
Carol.
(who has some chrysanthemums still stinking up her kitchen that she
was given by the headteacher of her kids' school and can't for shame
throw away until they die - bloomin' kids!).
Carol Clements
>> I've always heard the phrase as "solly, Cholly," a phonetic transcription
>> of a New York pronunciation of Charlie. So he's saying "sorry, Charlie"
>> except in a dialectic form.
>
>
> Well, as far as I can remember, I first heard "Cholly" in Shaw's
>Major Barabra (Oooow! I LoVe that play!), where it was refered to as
>slang and was used as a diminutive of Charly or Charles.
>
And I've just heard by e-mail that it's an inferior form of Tuna. Not
good enough to be SUNKIST Tuna - sorry Cholly (Charlie). So, that
silly pink swordfish thing I picked totally at random is even more
appropriate now...see you lot? We're not a Golden Horde at *all* -
we're inferior fish!
Hey Janet, I've been thinking...how about a new marketing idea? I was
thinking of doing some badges that say "I've had Stephen King's
virtual boot up my virtual bum" and, so we corner the market nicely..
"I _haven't_ had Stephen King's virtual boot up my virtual bum" - now
how would that be on a t-shirt? Cos we don't know whether we're
coming or going, we could have "I have" on the front and "I haven't"
on the back. Then you could send one to Steve that says "I did the
kicking" on the front....and....
Just a thought...
Carol.
ana...@pipeline.com
bb...@linkline.com (A Large, Vibrating Egg) wrote:
I'm sorry Bryan, I just can't stop laughing long enough to make any
sense of your actual post.
A Large, Vibrating Egg.....AHAAAAAAAAAA
Thanks I needed that!
**Anasazi**
(who took damn near a half an hour to get this out)
***************************************************************
**Don't unlock doors you're not prepared to walk through......X
So this is what kingdom come looks like.........The Tick
PSchnei552
FireDancer
David Christensen wrote:
>
> In article <32B6D0...@is.co.za>, de...@is.co.za wrote:
> > Yeah, and since when has Steve used a crappy word like cholly? I mean
> > what is a cholly? Does anyone know?
>
> of a New York pronunciation of Charlie. So he's saying "sorry, Charlie"
> except in a dialectic form.
>
> heard of a word or phrase before, does that mean that it doesn't exist?
>
anyone knew what it meant.
Chris Trainor
wayn...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <32B6D0...@is.co.za>, FireDancer <de...@is.co.za> writes:
>
> >Shooker wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> There are just too many things about the post and how it was
> transmitted
> >> that are questionable. I addressed some of these issues in another
> thread,
> >> and won't slog through them again here now, but I think more
> investigating
> >> needs to be done, and "proof" to be shown before we can take this
> posting
> >> as from SK.
> >>
> >> Shooker (who doesn't think this issue should die just yet... :) )
> >
> >what is a cholly? Does anyone know?
> >
>
> *Cholly* is what *Charlie* sounds like when you're from Maine
> <or Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island
> for that matter>. If it had said *Sorry Charlie*, I would have had
> my proof that it *wasn't* Stephen King!
>
> <buttin' back out now>
>
> Janet
> Folks, don't drink the water. This
> condition appears to be contagious!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
Actually, in Massachusetts it sounds more like "Chahlie." As in "Hey
Chahlie, go pahk the cah in Hahvahd yahd."
wayn...@aol.com
>> *Cholly* is what *Charlie* sounds like when you're from Maine
>> <or Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island
>> for that matter>. If it had said *Sorry Charlie*, I would have had
>> my proof that it *wasn't* Stephen King!
>>
>> <buttin' back out now>
>>
>> Janet
>
>Actually, in Massachusetts it sounds more like "Chahlie." As in "Hey
>Chahlie, go pahk the cah in Hahvahd yahd."
<Buttin' back in>
Murielle L. Sey
On 19 Dec 1996 wayn...@aol.com wrote:
> Burr! We've had extremely mild weather here, it was 53 yesterday!
> I want a White Christmas! <sorry Murielle> ;-)
>
> Janet
Hi Janet!
LOL! Hey, I'd be happy to send you some of ours, but it's looking
pretty grotty now... slush, oil, mud... you can imagine. I wouldn't mind
a nice little "dusting" to cover up the muck, myself.
Hugs
Murielle
A Large, Vibrating Egg
In article <32b8120...@news.demon.co.uk>, ca...@clems.demon.co.uk
(Carol Clements) wrote:
>And I've just heard by e-mail that it's an inferior form of Tuna. Not
>good enough to be SUNKIST Tuna - sorry Cholly (Charlie). So, that
>silly pink swordfish thing I picked totally at random is even more
>appropriate now...see you lot? We're not a Golden Horde at *all* -
>we're inferior fish!
Do you guys in the UK get a different brand of tuna, or did you mean to say
Starkist Tuna? I have to say, the idea of "Sunkist" tuna isn't too
appealing -- I'm thinking here of an open can of tuna turning brown and
flecked with houseflies in the midafternoon sun.
>Hey Janet, I've been thinking...how about a new marketing idea? I was
>thinking of doing some badges that say "I've had Stephen King's
>virtual boot up my virtual bum" and, so we corner the market nicely..
>"I _haven't_ had Stephen King's virtual boot up my virtual bum" - now
>how would that be on a t-shirt? Cos we don't know whether we're
>coming or going, we could have "I have" on the front and "I haven't"
>on the back. Then you could send one to Steve that says "I did the
>kicking" on the front....and....
I like the t-shirt idea. How about this one: "My Favorite Author Went to
alt.books.stephen-king and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt and a Virtual
Boot Up My Virtual Bum."
---
... So much you love a dog you feed it,
So much a song's heard it catches on,
So much fruit's hoarded up it goes rotten,
So much you dispute a place it's already taken,
So much you dawdle you ruin your life,
So much you hurry you run out of luck,
So much you hold on you lose your grip,
So much you cry Noel that it comes ...
(Francois Villon, "Ballade")
A Large, Vibrating Egg
In article
<Pine.A32.3.93.961219...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>,
"Murielle L. Sey" <ml...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
>On 19 Dec 1996 wayn...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Burr! We've had extremely mild weather here, it was 53 yesterday!
>> I want a White Christmas! <sorry Murielle> ;-)
> LOL! Hey, I'd be happy to send you some of ours, but it's looking
>pretty grotty now... slush, oil, mud... you can imagine. I wouldn't mind
>a nice little "dusting" to cover up the muck, myself.
I'd say it's somewhere in the high 70's right now where I'm at. Never mind
a white Christmas, I'll be happy to have a Christmas where I don't need to
turn on the air conditioner....
Chris Trainor
Scribbler wrote:
>
> Chris Trainor wrote:
> >
> > wayn...@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > You're right Chris, it does! You've got Harvard all wrong, though.
> > > It's only the *uppercrust* Bostonians who say Hahvahd. For the
> > > rest of us poor folk, it's *Hahvid*. Or is *my* accent getting in
> > > the way of things?
> >
> > right. (I'm from Woburn and like everyone else there, I pronounce it
> > Woobin.)
>
> doing a Literary Pilgrimage...trying to find Concord, MA (twisty roads
> out there, near about missed it). Stopped at a house and asked the woman
> in the yard if we'd passed Concord. She kept telling me about a place
> called "Can-cid", and only two minutes later did we associate her version
> with ours...
>
> Now, Scrib's a veritable cah-drivah on Massachusetts trips ;)
>
> Scrib
Reminds me of a joke that only works in (parts of) New England.
Warning! If you are offended by Abe Lincoln jokes, do not read on!!
Q: Was Abe Lincoln tall?
A: No, he was shot.
Explanation: A lot of people around here pronounce "short" like "shot."
Instead of saying "In the summer we wear shorts," some say it like this:
"In the summah we weyah shots."
Scribbler
A Large, Vibrating Egg wrote:
>
> I have to say, the idea of "Sunkist" tuna isn't too
> appealing -- I'm thinking here of an open can of tuna turning brown and
> flecked with houseflies in the midafternoon sun.
Between rancid tuna and vibrating eggs, I'm in no mood for supper,
now %-0
Scrib
Scribbler
The WRENN Family
Aloha!
Faux pas, error, mistake, stupid human trick...yep, I said SUNKIST
instead of STARKIST....yikes! <smacking my forehead with my open palm>
Well, I have been hittin the Mai Tai's lately ;)
Mea culpa,
Zorina
A Large, Vibrating Egg
In article <59dbfh$f...@news.istar.ca>, Scribbler <scri...@istar.ca> wrote:
>Kathleen Wells wrote:
>>
>> BTW, what have you done with Raul? And what are we supposed to call
>> you now-- Vibe?
>
>
>I call him Egg--anyone an Elfquest reader ;)
I'm getting a little tired of these yolks at my expense....
wayn...@aol.com
In article <32B83F...@aloha.net>, The WRENN Family <jtw...@aloha.net>
writes:
>Aloha Carol:
>
>Yep, as you have no doubt read from subsequent posts, *Sorry Cholly* is
>just a dialectic way of saying *Sorry, Charlie*...a reference to an
>old SUNKIST Tuna ad of yore. When Charlie the Tuna was rejected as NOT
>being the BEST Tuna, a SUNKIST reps. voice was heard in the background
>saying : Sorry, Charlie...only the best tuna gets to be SUNKIST!
Zorina, no offense, but it's STARKIST tuna.
>
>Loaded with a vast array of useless information,
>Zorina
>(psssst, it's freezin in Hawaii...it was 58 degrees yesterday! Brrrr!
>Goosebumps...or as the local lingo would have it *Chicken Skin*) :)
Burr! We've had extremely mild weather here, it was 53 yesterday!
I want a White Christmas! <sorry Murielle> ;-)
Janet
Scribbler
The WRENN Family wrote:
>
> Yep, as you have no doubt read from subsequent posts, *Sorry Cholly* is
> just a dialectic way of saying *Sorry, Charlie*...a reference to an
> old SUNKIST Tuna ad of yore. When Charlie the Tuna was rejected as NOT
> being the BEST Tuna, a SUNKIST reps. voice was heard in the background
> saying : Sorry, Charlie...only the best tuna gets to be SUNKIST!
Omigod, ROFLMAO! I remember that ad, I think. Although wasn't is
Starkist? My fam used to have an outsized beach-towel with Charlie Tuna
on it in an orange bathing-suit (speedo) and shades. O my gut hurts,
make her stop!
Scrib
FireDancer
Carol Clements wrote:
> PS How do you bury a spade? With another spade? JCB? What?
Nah, with a shovel;->
wayn...@aol.com
>Hey Janet, I've been thinking...how about a new marketing idea? I was
>thinking of doing some badges that say "I've had Stephen King's
>virtual boot up my virtual bum" and, so we corner the market nicely..
>"I _haven't_ had Stephen King's virtual boot up my virtual bum" - now
>how would that be on a t-shirt? Cos we don't know whether we're
>coming or going, we could have "I have" on the front and "I haven't"
>on the back. Then you could send one to Steve that says "I did the
>kicking" on the front....and....
>
>Just a thought...
>
>Carol.
LOL! I'm dying here! I can't do it though, Carol. I'd buy one,
but I just can't *do* it. I'll tell you what I think we could do
though, and this is *not* directed toward you, just the whole
thread in general... how about the same front, *Member a.b.s-k*
but on the back, we can change *Steve's Golden Horde* to
*Wizard and Glass Whiner's Club*
I think more people would buy it. <g>
Janet
wayn...@aol.com
In article
<Pine.A32.3.93.961219...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>,
"Murielle L. Sey" <ml...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> writes:
>> Burr! We've had extremely mild weather here, it was 53 yesterday!
>> I want a White Christmas! <sorry Murielle> ;-)
>>
>> Janet
>
>Hi Janet!
>
> LOL! Hey, I'd be happy to send you some of ours, but it's looking
>pretty grotty now... slush, oil, mud... you can imagine. I wouldn't
mind
>a nice little "dusting" to cover up the muck, myself.
>
>Hugs
>Murielle
Good Lord! Murielle wants snow! She *wants* it! Hell finally
froze over! <giggle>
Janet
wayn...@aol.com
In article <bbyun-ya02358000...@news.linkline.com>,
bb...@linkline.com (A Large, Vibrating Egg) writes:
>>> Burr! We've had extremely mild weather here, it was 53 yesterday!
>>> I want a White Christmas! <sorry Murielle> ;-)
>
>> LOL! Hey, I'd be happy to send you some of ours, but it's
looking
>>pretty grotty now... slush, oil, mud... you can imagine. I wouldn't
mind
>>a nice little "dusting" to cover up the muck, myself.
>
>I'd say it's somewhere in the high 70's right now where I'm at. Never
mind
>a white Christmas, I'll be happy to have a Christmas where I don't need
to
>turn on the air conditioner....
That will be quite enough, Bryan!
Janet
wayn...@aol.com
In article <32B990...@world.std.com>, Chris Trainor
<ctra...@world.std.com> writes:
>Explanation: A lot of people around here pronounce "short" like "shot."
>Instead of saying "In the summer we wear shorts," some say it like this:
>"In the summah we weyah shots."
And herein lies the difference between a Massachusetts accent and a
Rhode Island accent. We say shoats. Rhymes with shore, but we
never, *ever* pronounce an *r* unless it's at the beginning of a word
or the second letter of a word. the exception, of course is the word
*word*, which I must be saying wrong because I hear an *r*!
Janet
Angelo Wentzler
Randy Flood <fl...@aps.anl.gov> writes:
>Ha! that's what you think. In addition to being behind every major
>conspiracy of the last fifty years, Steve is not only keeping Hilter's
>brain alive inside a jar, but I saw him just this week selling heroin to
Now what would he need *that* for? If he had *Hitler's* brain, that would
be something...
>three-year-olds at the Sunny Diapers Preschool down the street from me.
Damn, and I thought I was the first.
Chuckie chuckie chuckieeeeee!
Angelo
--
rcb...@urc.tue.nl (internet) Hemelrijken 167, 5612 LC Eindhoven, Netherlands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you expect to get the booklet IN ADDITION to the light, all I can say is
sorry, Cholly..." -- Stephen King, "honouring" us with a second usenet posting
wayn...@aol.com
In article <bbyun-ya02358000...@news.linkline.com>,
bb...@linkline.com (A Large, Vibrating Egg) writes:
>In article <59dbfh$f...@news.istar.ca>, Scribbler <scri...@istar.ca>
wrote:
>
>>Kathleen Wells wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW, what have you done with Raul? And what are we supposed to call
>>> you now-- Vibe?
>>
>>
>>I call him Egg--anyone an Elfquest reader ;)
>
>I'm getting a little tired of these yolks at my expense....
>
>
Poor baby... getting all scrambled up?
Janet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Life is full of little surprises.
Enjoy them and count your
blessings!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Angelo Wentzler
saul milligan <mill...@rogerswave.ca> writes:
>Carol ... I doubt if you will see this since I am pretty sure you have
>"k-f'd" me but feel free to call me the "H" word anytime you like ... you
She has (kill-filed *and* called you the H-word) and I'm starting to feel
the same way... Why do your posts always have to be so resentful and
bitter? Is that on purpose or did you never realise this?
Jon Skeet
Kim Murrell <ki...@mail.warped.com> wrote:
<snip - IIRC, I agree with all that I've snipped>
> Some poeple were angered/pissed/hurt/bothered by that post...some
> were not. Neither group is the "right" group. I can fully
> understand why you and others weren't offended by it. It wasn't
> directed at you, so why should it bother you? I'm very rarely
> offended when the flame is directed at someone else. However, I can
> understand how that flamed person feels...and I respect their
> feelings.
> That's all we've ever wanted from our fellow abskers...to understand
> that while you weren't offended, we were. To accept our opinion as
> *ours*, even if you don't understand them.
But that cuts both ways. There were several posts suggesting that
those who weren't in the "pissed off by the post" group were
only saying what they were saying to suck up to King.
I was in the "not particularly pissed off by the post" group - I
certainly think King could have put it better, but I wasn't pissed
off with the general sentiment. That is my genuine opinion, and I'd
like it to be accepted as such. I understand why people were upset,
but I'm not upset myself... is that really such a bad thing?
--
Jon Skeet
When 900 years old *you* reach, look as good *you* will not, hmm?
Yoda - http://yoda.trin.cam.ac.uk. Geek code:
d- s:- a-- C++ UL++ P+ L++ W+++ N++ w--- M-- t- 5 X+ tv b+++ D+ G h* r++
Scribbler
Kathleen Wells wrote:
>
> BTW, what have you done with Raul? And what are we supposed to call
> you now-- Vibe?
I call him Egg--anyone an Elfquest reader ;)
Scrib
CleveJMA
Janet said:
>And herein lies the difference between a Massachusetts accent and a
>Rhode Island accent. We say shoats. Rhymes with shore, but we
>never, *ever* pronounce an *r* unless it's at the beginning of a word
>or the second letter of a word.
And my grandmother, who was from Missouri, threw in EXTRA r's: We
would warsh those sharts for you.
jma
"In all these things, we are more than conquerors ..."
Janet Aldrich
Clev...@aol.com
CleveJMA
A Large, Vibrating Egg said:
>>I'm getting a little tired of these yolks at my expense....
>>
>>
>Poor baby... getting all scrambled up?
>
>Janet
Keep your sunny side up and you'll bacon top in no time!
Merrick
A Large, Vibrating Egg wrote:
>
> >>Agreed. This issue _should_ die, make no mistake about it, but it should at least have a decent burial. :-)
<snip snip>
> >PS How do you bury a spade? With another spade? JCB? What?
>
> In this case, wouldn't cremation be a more appropriate sendoff? :)
> --
> Bryan Byun bb...@linkline.com
Bryan dear, I have *GOT* the matches. And a gallon of gasoline, just to
be sure that sucker burns, since it's all wet...
Shouldn't we have a big party afterward? Who'll bring the cake?
Merrick
--
"We praise a man who feels angry on the right grounds and against the
right persons and also in the right manner at the right moment and for
the right length of time."
Aristotle
Merrick
CleveJMA wrote:
>
> Janet said:
>
> >And herein lies the difference between a Massachusetts accent and a
> >Rhode Island accent. We say shoats. Rhymes with shore, but we
> >never, *ever* pronounce an *r* unless it's at the beginning of a word
> >or the second letter of a word.
>
> And my grandmother, who was from Missouri, threw in EXTRA r's: We
> would warsh those sharts for you.
>
> jma
And in Louisiana, we'd add whole *syllables* to the word. "Ashley-Lou,
git some show-urts on, girl!"
Embarrassing, yes, but I'm posting it anyway!
Merrick
Carol Clements
On 19 Dec 1996 13:38:26 GMT, wayn...@aol.com wrote:
>Zorina, no offense, but it's STARKIST tuna.
I got it wrong too then Janet, I only got Zorina's e-mail, and hadn't
seen her post on the group, so I quoted it as SUNKIST too....ah
well...
Carol.
*************************************************************
Any new venture goes through the following stages:
enthusiasm, complication, disillusionment, search for
the guilty, punishment of the innocent, and decoration
of those who did nothing.
Anonymous.
wayn...@aol.com
In article <32BAA8...@cablecom.laribay.net>, Merrick
<mlo...@cablecom.laribay.net> writes:
>> >PS How do you bury a spade? With another spade? JCB? What?
>>
>> In this case, wouldn't cremation be a more appropriate sendoff? :)
>
>> --
>> Bryan Byun bb...@linkline.com
>
>Bryan dear, I have *GOT* the matches. And a gallon of gasoline, just to
>be sure that sucker burns, since it's all wet...
>
>Shouldn't we have a big party afterward? Who'll bring the cake?
>
>
Burn the sucker! Better drive a stake through it and shoot
it with a silver bullet too, 'cause sometimes they come back!
I'll bring the champagne!
Laura Otto-Salaj
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Kathleen Wells wrote:
>
> A Large, Vibrating Egg wrote:
> >
>
>
>
> Kate
Now, now. I can see where it would be hard for Egg to keep his
sunny-side up with all of these comments.
<...>
(scrambling for cover...)
Laura
***************************************************
It's not so important to be serious as it is to be serious
about the important things. The monkey wears an expression
of seriousness that would do credit to any great scholar.
But the monkey is serious because he itches.
-Unknown
A Large, Vibrating Egg
In article <59e233$e...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, jl...@cam.ac.uk (Jon Skeet) wrote:
>Kim Murrell <ki...@mail.warped.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't see how much more straightforward I can get. All I'm trying to say
>> is that if you don't care about the SK post or it's authenticity, it would
>> prolly be best to stay out of it.
>
>That's not the impression I got. I may have misinterpreted your
>post, but I thought you were saying it would probably be best not to
>post if (person in question) didn't post in the "original" thread. I
>always took that "original" thread to be the one commenting about
>the release of the excerpt. I think it's perfectly possible to be
>interested in King's post but not to have post on that "original"
>thread - I fall into that category myself.
It's prolly clearer if you take the previous messages in _this_ thread into
account. A few people posted saying, in effect, "I don't really care about
the post, BUT --" or "It didn't affect me either way BUT --" and I think
Kim's comment, the one that seems to have been pulled every which way, was
in reference to that, even though it did draw on Murielle's post from eons
back (geez, a couple weeks at least), which is likely closer to the
interpretation you state above.
In any case, Kim has clarified her statement several times since making
"the post in question", so let's keep that in mind instead of whatever
interpretation we might have made of her older post.
A Large, Vibrating Egg
>Kim Murrell <ki...@mail.warped.com> wrote:
>> That's all we've ever wanted from our fellow abskers...to understand
>> that while you weren't offended, we were. To accept our opinion as
>> *ours*, even if you don't understand them.
>
>But that cuts both ways. There were several posts suggesting that
>those who weren't in the "pissed off by the post" group were
>only saying what they were saying to suck up to King.
I think you're right -- there were unfair remarks directed at all parties
in this fiasco. Perhaps we can draw some lessons from this for the future
-- the first one being, let's all of us try harder to show respect for
other people's opinions, *especially* if they differ from your own.
>I was in the "not particularly pissed off by the post" group - I
>certainly think King could have put it better, but I wasn't pissed
>off with the general sentiment. That is my genuine opinion, and I'd
>like it to be accepted as such. I understand why people were upset,
>but I'm not upset myself... is that really such a bad thing?
I don't know. I do know that in the original thread and in this one, there
were posts by people who came in proclaiming their indifference to this
issue, and then went on to post remarks that merely fanned the flames
higher. I think in some cases the detachment gave the person the ability
to empathize more closely with both sides of the debate, and to be more
objective; and in other cases, it merely allowed for a certain cavalier
attitude to take hold.
The most useless and inflammatory comments, in my opinion, were the ones
that said merely, "I don't see what the big deal is, I think you should all
just chill out" or words to that effect. Just that sort of casually
dismissive remark that lets the writer feel clever but adds nothing but
another flaming log to the discourse.
A Large, Vibrating Egg
In article <rcbaaw.8...@asterix.urc.tue.nl>, rcb...@urc.tue.nl (Angelo
Wentzler) wrote:
>Randy Flood <fl...@aps.anl.gov> writes:
>
>>Ha! that's what you think. In addition to being behind every major
>>conspiracy of the last fifty years, Steve is not only keeping Hilter's
>>brain alive inside a jar, but I saw him just this week selling heroin to
>
>Now what would he need *that* for? If he had *Hitler's* brain, that would
>be something...
He can keep it next to the jar containing the infamous heart of a young boy.
Hmmm...Hitler's brain...and the heart of a young boy...say, I think that
explains the secret of SK's novels better than anything else I've ever
heard!
>>three-year-olds at the Sunny Diapers Preschool down the street from me.
>
>Damn, and I thought I was the first.
Aw, that block is all played out. Half those rug monkeys are in rehab now.
I'll let you in on a secret, the first graders at Happy Sputum Elementary a
few miles down the road are gonna need something "special" to get them over
the post-holiday blahs. I hear Dean Koontz is expecting a big shipment of
crystal meth after the New Year.
Scribbler
Merrick wrote:
>
> CleveJMA wrote:
> >
> > And my grandmother, who was from Missouri, threw in EXTRA r's: We
> > would warsh those sharts for you.
Hate that! We have some folks up here, too, who do this. Pronounce
"wash" as "wersh" or "warsh"--drives me dippy. That and "you's": "Did
you's guys see that movie?" The only two colloquialisms which rub me the
wrong way and *aren't* charming! But the "wersh" thing--where's that
from? I've only met a few families, way rural, who do that--it's not the
norm in Ontario and English-speaking Quebec, in my experience. Then
again, I have an ultra-correct grandmother who prides herself on her
language and knowedge of current events--yet she has a "ruff" over her
head to this day. ;)
> And in Louisiana, we'd add whole *syllables* to the word. "Ashley-Lou,
> git some show-urts on, girl!"
Now *that's* charming, though, IMO! We have Florida friends who do
this--"cat" becomes "ca-yaaaat". It's niftums.
Scrib
Angelo Wentzler
ca...@clems.demon.co.uk (Carol Clements) writes:
>PS How do you bury a spade? With another spade? JCB? What?
Doggie style. Yip!
Jon Skeet
Kim Murrell <ki...@mail.warped.com> wrote:
> I don't see how much more straightforward I can get. All I'm trying to say
> is that if you don't care about the SK post or it's authenticity, it would
> prolly be best to stay out of it.
That's not the impression I got. I may have misinterpreted your
post, but I thought you were saying it would probably be best not to
post if (person in question) didn't post in the "original" thread. I
always took that "original" thread to be the one commenting about
the release of the excerpt. I think it's perfectly possible to be
interested in King's post but not to have post on that "original"
thread - I fall into that category myself.
--
Scribbler
Laura Otto-Salaj wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Kathleen Wells wrote:
> >
> > A Large, Vibrating Egg wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <59dbfh$f...@news.istar.ca>, Scribbler <scri...@istar.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Kathleen Wells wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> BTW, what have you done with Raul? And what are we supposed to call
> > > >> you now-- Vibe?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >I call him Egg--anyone an Elfquest reader ;)
> > >
> > > I'm getting a little tired of these yolks at my expense....
> >
> >
> > Tsk. And I thought you were such a hard-boiled individualist.
> >
> > Kate
>
> Now, now. I can see where it would be hard for Egg to keep his
> sunny-side up with all of these comments.
>
> <...>
>
> (scrambling for cover...)
>
> Laura
Between Egg, Kate and Laura, I'm busting at the seams--the neighbour just
pounded out my laughter...sometimes I'm really in the mood for corny...
;)
Gros bises,
Scrib
Carol Clements
On 20 Dec 1996 00:25:54 GMT, wayn...@aol.com wrote:
>LOL! I'm dying here! I can't do it though, Carol. I'd buy one,
>but I just can't *do* it. I'll tell you what I think we could do
>though, and this is *not* directed toward you, just the whole
>thread in general... how about the same front, *Member a.b.s-k*
>but on the back, we can change *Steve's Golden Horde* to
>*Wizard and Glass Whiner's Club*
Did you just offer me a glass of wine? Cheers! Compliments of the
Season! : )
>I think more people would buy it. <g>
Nah, I think you're limiting your market a bit there Janet...but I'd
buy *that* for a dollar!
The money goes to *you* right? Not...um....anywhere else....? <g>
Carol Clements
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 11:44:38 -0800, bb...@linkline.com (A Large,
Vibrating Egg) wrote:
>Do you guys in the UK get a different brand of tuna, or did you mean to say
>Starkist Tuna? I have to say, the idea of "Sunkist" tuna isn't too
>appealing -- I'm thinking here of an open can of tuna turning brown and
>flecked with houseflies in the midafternoon sun.
Sorry, I was quoting from an e-mail, and I passed on an error. It
*is* Starkist, but since we have neither here, I was clueless anyway.
We get John West Tuna over here mainly...
>I like the t-shirt idea. How about this one: "My Favorite Author Went to
>alt.books.stephen-king and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt and a Virtual
>Boot Up My Virtual Bum."
That's good too, but I like the idea of people being able to
choose....whether they believe it or not...and if they *do* believe
it, whether they felt insulted or not...either way the badges and
t-shirts work with I have/haven't don't they? Got it covered!
Murielle L. Sey
On 20 Dec 1996 wayn...@aol.com wrote:
> LOL! I'm dying here! I can't do it though, Carol. I'd buy one,
> but I just can't *do* it. I'll tell you what I think we could do
> though, and this is *not* directed toward you, just the whole
> thread in general... how about the same front, *Member a.b.s-k*
> but on the back, we can change *Steve's Golden Horde* to
> *Wizard and Glass Whiner's Club*
>
> I think more people would buy it. <g>
>
> Janet
Pardon my butt... but:
(howling and spewing crystal light peach ice tea) Oh, let's not
pull any punches... let's just call ourselves the pissers and moaners and
be done with it... (lol) Or, wait... would that be infringing certain
copyright laws? (roflap)
Oh, I know... Murielle get your butt back out in the cold!
Hugs
Murielle :-))
Murielle L. Sey
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, A Large, Vibrating Egg wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.A32.3.93.961219...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>,
> "Murielle L. Sey" <ml...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On 19 Dec 1996 wayn...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> Burr! We've had extremely mild weather here, it was 53 yesterday!
> >> I want a White Christmas! <sorry Murielle> ;-)
>
> > LOL! Hey, I'd be happy to send you some of ours, but it's looking
> >pretty grotty now... slush, oil, mud... you can imagine. I wouldn't mind
> >a nice little "dusting" to cover up the muck, myself.
>
> I'd say it's somewhere in the high 70's right now where I'm at. Never mind
> a white Christmas, I'll be happy to have a Christmas where I don't need to
> turn on the air conditioner..
Oh Bryan!
I spoke too soon! (driving forehead into keyboard...) I take it
back! Now we're in the middle of another "arctic" freeze. It's been
snowing all day and will continue to "dump" and the temp is heading down
to -30 C over the next two days... Argh!!!
Santa better have a shovel with him when he hits Calgary, cause
he'd going to have to dig his way in!
Hugs (brrrrr)
Murielle
Murielle L. Sey
On 20 Dec 1996, Kim Murrell wrote:
> In article <32B6D6...@rogerswave.ca> saul milligan <mill...@rogerswave.ca> writes:
> > Raul Bloodworth wrote:
>
> >
> > Wrong, wrong, wrong Bryan. Carol got it wrong. What I said was that it is
> > disingenuous to post to the ng and then suggest that certain members of
> > the ng should not participate in the ensuing discussion.
>
> Okay...I thought I was gonna stay out of this...<sigh>
>
> My problem is with that word, "disingenuous." It was direscted at me, and
> I'm sorry, Stevie, but totally off base. Let's look at what that word means.
> (I'll get the dictionary) "disingenuous - not staightforward; crafty."
>
> Now, where was I crafty? I didn't start the authenticity thread, then pick
> the folks who could respond. I simply did not. I was responding to some posts
> that struck me as very negative. (I've already explained this ad nauseum, but
> I'll say it one more time.) If you are interested in this, or have something
> constuctive to add...post away! If, however, all you have to say is, "Why are
> you beating this dead horse? I believe it was from SK, so why don't you drop it.",
> then I believe it would be best for you, me...everyone...if you just stayed out
> of it. All it's going to do is spawn threads like this.
Well, I've made a huge effort to keep my own butt out, but I have
to say this Kim... I truly believed the "disingenuous" bit was aimed at
me, after all, I was the one who originally "suggested" that those of us
(and I mostly mean folks like myself who really don't have anything
constructive to add) should stay out of it.
So, don't take the entire weight of that comment on yourself, you
were, after all, quoting something I'd posted earlier, and you got your
knuckles wrapped for it. I'm truly sorry that something I wrote was in
any way the cause of annoyance or hurt to you... truly.
Hugs
Murielle
Kim Murrell
In article <32B6D6...@rogerswave.ca> saul milligan <mill...@rogerswave.ca> writes:
> Raul Bloodworth wrote:
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong Bryan. Carol got it wrong. What I said was that it is
> disingenuous to post to the ng and then suggest that certain members of
> the ng should not participate in the ensuing discussion.
Okay...I thought I was gonna stay out of this...<sigh>
My problem is with that word, "disingenuous." It was direscted at me, and
I'm sorry, Stevie, but totally off base. Let's look at what that word means.
(I'll get the dictionary) "disingenuous - not staightforward; crafty."
Now, where was I crafty? I didn't start the authenticity thread, then pick
the folks who could respond. I simply did not. I was responding to some posts
that struck me as very negative. (I've already explained this ad nauseum, but
I'll say it one more time.) If you are interested in this, or have something
constuctive to add...post away! If, however, all you have to say is, "Why are
you beating this dead horse? I believe it was from SK, so why don't you drop it.",
then I believe it would be best for you, me...everyone...if you just stayed out
of it. All it's going to do is spawn threads like this.
--
Kim Murrell ki...@mail.warped.com
"having a pony to ride was better than no pony at all,
no matter how the weather of it's heart might lie."
saul milligan
Angelo Wentzler wrote:
>She has(kill-filed *and* called you the H-word) and I'm starting to feel
>the same way...
Please, please, please Angelo .... please kf me. It would be a great
relief.
>Why do your posts always have to be so resentful and bitter? Is that on
>purpose or did you never realise this?
Do you come along after the fact and piss gasoline on the dying embers on
purpose Angelo or is it just the way you are?
Stevie Canuck
--
there's no one to hear you, you might as well scream
they never woke up from the american dream
they don't understand what they don't see
they look through you, and they look past me
oh you and I dancing slow, and we got nowhere to go
Melissa Etheridge
wayn...@aol.com
In article
<Pine.ULT.3.90.961220122...@post.its.mcw.edu>, Laura
Otto-Salaj <lott...@post.its.mcw.edu> writes:
>My apologies to Janet and jma for not having read their posts before I
>posted. What could have been clever, having already been posted in a
>form, now appears to be merely stupid. :-(
Silly Laura! Everyone knows that post *always* show up late!
No need to apologise! It's nice to know I'm not the only one
who does it!
>
>Laura (who usually tries to be the Miss Manners of netiquette...)
EEK! Now I'm scrambling for cover!
Carol Clements
>I'd say it's somewhere in the high 70's right now where I'm at. Never mind
>a white Christmas, I'll be happy to have a Christmas where I don't need to
>turn on the air conditioner....
OOH!! It's grey, it's cold, it's rainy, it's windy, my hair looks
like I turned into a poodle overnight....wanna swap?
Laura Otto-Salaj
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Laura Otto-Salaj wrote:
>
> Now, now. I can see where it would be hard for Egg to keep his
> sunny-side up with all of these comments.
>
> <...>
>
> (scrambling for cover...)
>
>
> Laura
My apologies to Janet and jma for not having read their posts before I
posted. What could have been clever, having already been posted in a
form, now appears to be merely stupid. :-(
Laura (who usually tries to be the Miss Manners of netiquette...)
A Large, Vibrating Egg
In article <32BAA8...@cablecom.laribay.net>,
mlo...@cablecom.laribay.net wrote:
>A Large, Vibrating Egg wrote:
>> (Carol Clements) wrote:
>>
>> >>Agreed. This issue _should_ die, make no mistake about it, but it
should at least have a decent burial. :-)
>
><snip snip>
>
>> >PS How do you bury a spade? With another spade? JCB? What?
>>
>> In this case, wouldn't cremation be a more appropriate sendoff? :)
>Bryan dear, I have *GOT* the matches. And a gallon of gasoline, just to
>be sure that sucker burns, since it's all wet...
>
>Shouldn't we have a big party afterward? Who'll bring the cake?
Jon R. and Stein should. This whole thread is all their fault, but for
secret reasons I can't reveal because I might violate my confidences. :)