Dry dreams?
Christopher Johnson
'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
and that's what he said it's called. I looked around on
the Net, and I get it already, OK? So, nobody panic, OK?
I don't really wanna talk about it, but.... if there're
'wet dreams', are there 'dry dreams' too, or what?
And.... *if* this is an inappropriate question for this
NG, just say so, and I'll try and figure it out somewhere
else, and I apologize in advance for my question.
I just figured it could be a question about antonyms or
something....
--
Christopher
Dena Jo
> Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
> 'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
> and that's what he said it's called.
Aw, well, if anyone has any remaining doubts about CJ's veracity, this
post should clinch it.
Yup, seems genuine to me...
--
Dena Jo
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
R F
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Dena Jo wrote:
> On 05 Sep 2003, Christopher Johnson posted thus:
>
> > Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
> > 'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
> > and that's what he said it's called.
>
> Aw, well, if anyone has any remaining doubts about CJ's veracity, this
> post should clinch it.
>
> Yup, seems genuine to me...
My thoughts exactly. CJ, please forgive me for ever doubting you.
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> On 05 Sep 2003, Christopher Johnson posted thus:
>> Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
>> 'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
>> and that's what he said it's called.
> Aw, well, if anyone has any remaining doubts about CJ's veracity, this
> post should clinch it.
> Yup, seems genuine to me...
I dunno, does any self-respecting teen chat with his Dad? I spent my teen
years avoiding Dad's opinions.
Wet and dry dreams gets me to thinking of web and dry ribs ...
Harvey Van Sickle
> Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
> 'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
> and that's what he said it's called. I looked around on
> the Net, and I get it already, OK? So, nobody panic, OK?
>
> I don't really wanna talk about it, but.... if there're
> 'wet dreams', are there 'dry dreams' too, or what?
Sure: they're the dreams that are similar, but where that bit doesn't
happen, and they don't need a separate adjective because -- like real
life -- those cases comprise the majority.
And the majority case generally claims the unadjectived noun -- which
is why we have PC forms for certain unadorned words .....
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
Lars Eighner
<Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu>,
the lovely and talented R F
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
I've seen a person with dry dreams -- not a pretty sight -- although
I called it the DTs.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
"Where is human nature so weak as in a bookstore!" --Henry Ward Beecher
Christopher Johnson
Hey! Wait a minute! I thought I was 'Truly Donovan' today!
--
Christopher
Christopher Johnson
> On 05 Sep 2003, Christopher Johnson posted thus:
>
> > Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
> > 'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
> > and that's what he said it's called.
>
> Aw, well, if anyone has any remaining doubts about CJ's veracity, this
> post should clinch it.
>
> Yup, seems genuine to me...
What? I just passed the 'Dena Jo test of veracity'? Do
I get a prize or something?
Oh, no.... wait a minute.... umm.... sarcasm alert!
--
Christopher
richard.chambers7
"Christopher Johnson" <chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> I don't really wanna talk about it, but.... if there're
> 'wet dreams', are there 'dry dreams' too, or what?
>
Lost in the Sahara, with the wind blowing sand hard into your face. Dunes
constantly shifting size, shape and position. Camel already dead. Water,
water, must get some water. Water, water, it's desperate. Water, water, iced
water! Any water at all, warm or cold! Sudden appearance of Claudia Schiffer
through the blown dust. Topless. Through her transparent dress, you can see
that she is not wearing knickers. The wind is blowing her flimsy dress
between her thighs, throwing into relief the distinctive shape of her
generous pubic mound.
-"Got any water, Claudia?".
-"No, Christopher, I was desperately hoping you might have some".
-"No water! Lot of fucking use you are, Schiffer. Bugger off, bitch!".
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Christopher Johnson
Are you sure that's "Leeds UK", and not "Arabia"?
You know... like 'Dick of Arabia', or something?
--
Christopher
Martin Ambuhl
> I don't really wanna talk about it, but.... if there're
> 'wet dreams', are there 'dry dreams' too, or what?
Only if they involve dry humping. No, those are probably wet, too.
--
Martin Ambuhl
Simon R. Hughes
> Dena Jo <TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 05 Sep 2003, Christopher Johnson posted thus:
>
> >> Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
> >> 'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
> >> and that's what he said it's called.
>
> > Aw, well, if anyone has any remaining doubts about CJ's veracity, this
> > post should clinch it.
>
> > Yup, seems genuine to me...
>
> I dunno, does any self-respecting teen chat with his Dad? I spent my teen
> years avoiding Dad's opinions.
Exactly.
--
Simon R. Hughes <!-- Kill "Kenny" for email. -->
<!-- 67 deg. 17' N; 14 deg. 23' E -->
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Sudden appearance of Claudia Schiffer through the blown dust.
> Topless. Through her transparent dress, you can see that she is not
> wearing knickers.
Is there a reason that she should be? Maybe she'll be golfing later
and will have to change in the car?
This is one that always brings me up short. For me, like most
Americans, knickers are, let's see,
http://www.golfknicker.com/pargolknic.html
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |In the beginning, there were no
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |reasons, there were only causes.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Daniel Dennet
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
R H Draney
>
>"richard.chambers7" <richard....@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>> Sudden appearance of Claudia Schiffer through the blown dust.
>> Topless. Through her transparent dress, you can see that she is not
>> wearing knickers.
>
>Is there a reason that she should be? Maybe she'll be golfing later
>and will have to change in the car?
>
>This is one that always brings me up short. For me, like most
>Americans, knickers are, let's see,
>
> http://www.golfknicker.com/pargolknic.html
There's another joke that starts much the same way:
http://www.aarons-jokes.com/joke-1487.shtml
...proving that the golf--er--links in this setup are more or less
ubiquitous....r
Fabian
"Christopher Johnson" <chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F58F492...@yahoo.com...
> Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
> 'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
> and that's what he said it's called. I looked around on
> the Net, and I get it already, OK? So, nobody panic, OK?
>
> I don't really wanna talk about it, but.... if there're
> 'wet dreams', are there 'dry dreams' too, or what?
Sure there are dry dreams too. Those are the ones where you dream of
Winnie the Pooh. Unless of course you're really weird.
--
--
Fabian
Once you get over the initial panic stage, oxygen starvation is actually
a rather pleasant sensation, almost like falling asleep.
Tony Cooper
>Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
>'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
>and that's what he said it's called. I looked around on
>the Net, and I get it already, OK? So, nobody panic, OK?
>
>I don't really wanna talk about it, but.... if there're
>'wet dreams', are there 'dry dreams' too, or what?
>
>And.... *if* this is an inappropriate question for this
>NG, just say so,
So.
mb
...
> if there're 'wet dreams', are there 'dry dreams' too, or what?
Congratulations. Coinage of the month. Fully deserves to successfully
make it into the everyday language.
Adrian Bailey
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu...
This is sarcasm, right.
Adrian
Christopher Johnson
So be it, then.
--
Christopher
Christopher Johnson
This apparent accolade notwithstanding, I just can't
seem to manage to get past that split infinitive.
--
Christopher
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Christopher Johnson wrote
> ...
> > if there're 'wet dreams', are there 'dry dreams' too, or what?
> Congratulations. Coinage of the month. Fully deserves
> to successfully make it into the everyday language.
What about the intermediate situation, "moist dreams"?
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
> 'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
> and that's what he said it's called.
[...]
Next & related topic to discuss with Dad:
What's a "wet spot" and who has to sleep on it?
[...]
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Harvey Van Sickle
> "Christopher Johnson" <chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3F58F492...@yahoo.com...
-snip-
>> I don't really wanna talk about it, but....
>
>
> If there's anything else you don't want to talk about,
> Chris, remember to post it on Usenet.
>
> It is off-topic here, unless of course someone from AUE
> was in your dream -- in which case, details, please.
It was, however, merely the preface to the snipped on-topic musing
about the absence of a logical pairing (that is, why is there no
commonly-used term "dry dream"?)
Matti Lamprhey
> "R F" <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> wrote...
> > On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Dena Jo wrote:
> > > On 05 Sep 2003, Christopher Johnson posted thus:
> > >
> > > > Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
> > > > 'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
> > > > and that's what he said it's called.
> > >
> > > Aw, well, if anyone has any remaining doubts about CJ's veracity,
> > > this post should clinch it.
> > >
> > > Yup, seems genuine to me...
> >
> > My thoughts exactly. CJ, please forgive me for ever doubting you.
>
> This is sarcasm, right.
Well this newsgroup emission of CJ's certainly removes any doubts I
might still have entertained.
Matti
Christopher Johnson
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 08:07:05 GMT, Michael West wrote
> > "Christopher Johnson" <chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F58F492...@yahoo.com...
>
> -snip-
>
> >> I don't really wanna talk about it, but....
> >
> >
> > If there's anything else you don't want to talk about,
> > Chris, remember to post it on Usenet.
> >
> > It is off-topic here, unless of course someone from AUE
> > was in your dream -- in which case, details, please.
>
> It was, however, merely the preface to the snipped on-topic musing
> about the absence of a logical pairing (that is, why is there no
> commonly-used term "dry dream"?)
Thanks Harvey! Yeah, Mike, you snipped the whole point of
my post! I was asking about an expression which doesn't
appear to have an antonym. We were trying to find an
antonym for 'amulet' the other day, remember? So it was
surely not only on-topic but also current?
I wasn't looking for anyone to give me a sex ed lesson
or anything! But the fact that I dared to mention another
personal experience here seems to have provided the likes
of RF, Matti and Dena "QOTC" Jo with what they consider
more so-called 'evidence' that I'm some kind of fake.
This, of course, was something I was only able to realize
about what those these 3 posters said after I had hacked
away relentlessly for hours and hours at the incredibly
thick layer of highly subtle sarcasm surrounding their
comments.
--
Christopher
Dena Jo
> I wasn't looking for anyone to give me a sex ed lesson
> or anything! But the fact that I dared to mention another
> personal experience here seems to have provided the likes
> of RF, Matti and Dena "QOTC" Jo with what they consider
> more so-called 'evidence' that I'm some kind of fake.
>
> This, of course, was something I was only able to realize
> about what those these 3 posters said after I had hacked
> away relentlessly for hours and hours at the incredibly
> thick layer of highly subtle sarcasm surrounding their
> comments.
You did much better when you first got here. Now you're falling in and
out of character. Something you might want to work on.
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> Lost in the Sahara, with the wind blowing sand hard into your face. Dunes
> constantly shifting size, shape and position. Camel already dead. Water,
> water, must get some water. Water, water, it's desperate. Water, water, iced
> water! Any water at all, warm or cold! Sudden appearance of Claudia Schiffer
> through the blown dust. Topless. Through her transparent dress, you can see
> that she is not wearing knickers. The wind is blowing her flimsy dress
> between her thighs, throwing into relief the distinctive shape of her
> generous pubic mound.
> -"Got any water, Claudia?".
> -"No, Christopher, I was desperately hoping you might have some".
> -"No water! Lot of fucking use you are, Schiffer. Bugger off, bitch!".
Speaking of the Sahara, I came across this puzzle in "Being Good" by
Simon Blackburn:
"A man is about to cross a desert. He has two enemies. In the night the
first enemy slips into his camp, and puts strychnine in his water bottle.
Later the same night, the second enemy, not knowing of this, slips into
his camp and puts a tiny puncture in the water bottle. The man sets off
across the desert; when the time comes to drink there is nothing in the
bottle and the man dies of thirst.
Who murdered him? Defence counsel for the first man has a cast-iron
argument; my client attempted to poison the man, admittedly. But he failed
because the victim took no poison. Defence counsel for the second man has
a similary powerful arguement; my client attempted to deprive the man
of water, admittedly. But he failed, for he only deprived the victim of
strychnine; and you cannot murder someone by doing that."
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> Sure there are dry dreams too. Those are the ones where you dream of
> Winnie the Pooh. Unless of course you're really weird.
Winnie the Pooh
Winnie the Pooh
Tubby little cubby all stuffed with fluff
He's Winnie the Pooh
Winnie the Pooh
Willy nilly silly old bear
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> Next & related topic to discuss with Dad:
> What's a "wet spot" and who has to sleep on it?
Mom, of course! Women love sleeping in the wet spot!
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> It is off-topic here, unless of course someone from AUE
> was in your dream -- in which case, details, please.
Are you kidding? Who from AUE isn't in my dreams? Well, maybe Charles,
he's slipped back into my subconscious.
Simon R. Hughes
> I wasn't looking for anyone to give me a sex ed lesson
> or anything! But the fact that I dared to mention another
> personal experience here seems to have provided the likes
> of RF, Matti and Dena "QOTC" Jo with what they consider
> more so-called 'evidence' that I'm some kind of fake.
>
> This, of course, was something I was only able to realize
> about what those these 3 posters said after I had hacked
> away relentlessly for hours and hours at the incredibly
> thick layer of highly subtle sarcasm surrounding their
> comments.
It's Mimi, isn't it? Stop it Mimi; the embarrassment could kill you
this time.
Christopher Johnson
> You did much better when you first got here. Now you're falling in and
> out of character. Something you might want to work on.
But.... Dena Jo, (Ooops! Sorry! I meant: "Your Majesty"),
"falling in and out of character", being the teenager that
I am, is what I do naturally at the moment.
BTW, you're not very regal or majestic, Dena Jo. You may
want to try incorporating a few royal 'touches' in your
posts (an occasional 'royal we' for example).
Something you might want to work on.
--
Christopher
Dena Jo
> BTW, you're not very regal or majestic, Dena Jo. You may
> want to try incorporating a few royal 'touches' in your
> posts (an occasional 'royal we' for example).
>
> Something you might want to work on.
Why? I've never claimed to be regal or majestic. That's something
you're ascribing to me.
Christopher Johnson
> On 06 Sep 2003, Christopher Johnson posted thus:
>
> > BTW, you're not very regal or majestic, Dena Jo. You may
> > want to try incorporating a few royal 'touches' in your
> > posts (an occasional 'royal we' for example).
> >
> > Something you might want to work on.
>
> Why? I've never claimed to be regal or majestic. That's something
> you're ascribing to me.
Quite so, Dena Jo.
But I wasn't the first to ascribe, what shall I call it, a
'Queenly quality' to you - not that I approved of the
original highly offensive remark made about you.
My point, Dena Jo, is that I have been known to have
exposed myself to criticism here simply because, perhaps
foolishly, I have talked a couple of times about personal
experiences I have had. The sarcasm and inferences that
have resulted from my doing so were extremely unpleasant
and distressing to me personally.
Am I supposed to accept, though, that what's sauce
for the goose is *not* sauce for the gander? Maybe I ask
that people are tolerant of some of my posts when it is
unfair of me to expect such tolerance. I don't know. But
the frequent suggestion, usually sarcastically made, that
I am a 'fake', are, to say the least, unwarranted. I continue
to make an effort, nevertheless, to take such suggestions
in my stride so that I am usually able to shrug them off
relatively easily.
If I caused you any offense, I apologise. It was not my
intention. You, of course, will continue to believe about
me what you will, and that is your right.
--
Christopher
mb
> > make it into the everyday language.
>
> This apparent accolade notwithstanding, I just can't
> seem to manage to get past that split infinitive.
I like them split. Can you make a case for banning them?
Christopher Johnson
No, but then I've never tried to make such a case. It's
just a personal dislike of mine, that's all. I'm out of
time, so can I just ask you to take a quick look at:
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/cyc/s/split.htm
I think it makes for interesting reading.
--
Christopher
richard.chambers7
"Christopher Johnson" <chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
> 'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
> the Net, and I get it already, OK? So, nobody panic, OK?
>
Why not? If you have had a good wet dream, many of us here would enjoy the
titillation of the full details. We eagerly await any further emission from
you on the subject.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Christopher Johnson
It was a wet dream about discussing antonyms, Richard;
unlikely to be of much interest to anyone around here.
--
Christopher
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> Dena Jo... Dena Jo...
Ah hah! You are Richard Fontana, and I claim my $5. Nobody else uses
names as often as he does.
--
SML, pulling usage stats out of thin air
please remove your hat when sending me e-mail
Skitt
> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" wrote:
>> Next & related topic to discuss with Dad:
>> What's a "wet spot" and who has to sleep on it?
>
> Mom, of course! Women love sleeping in the wet spot!
Gosh, I've never experienced one big enough to sleep *in*.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Christopher Johnson
> Christopher Johnson wrote, in part:
>
> > Dena Jo... Dena Jo...
>
> Ah hah! You are Richard Fontana, and I claim my $5. Nobody else uses
> names as often as he does.
Sara, you are truly and absolutely brilliant, Sara!
Sara, I hereby declare you to be the outright winner
of $5, Sara!
Sara, do you accept PayPal transactions, Sara?
--
Christopher
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> It was a wet dream about discussing antonyms, Richard;
> unlikely to be of much interest to anyone around here.
Was Britney Spears involved?
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> Am I supposed to accept, though, that what's sauce
> for the goose is *not* sauce for the gander?
Now *that* sounds like something off an SAT study guide!
Chistopher says "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".
Does he mean:
a) goose tastes better with sauce,
b) he is looking at a saucy goose ...
Christopher Johnson
> Now *that* sounds like something off an SAT study guide!
>
> Chistopher says "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".
^
My name is Christopher.
--
Christopher
Tony Cooper
<chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Quite so, Dena Jo.
>
>But I wasn't the first to ascribe, what shall I call it, a
>'Queenly quality' to you - not that I approved of the
>original highly offensive remark made about you.
>
>My point, Dena Jo, is that I have been known to have
>exposed myself to criticism here simply because, perhaps
>foolishly, I have talked a couple of times about personal
>experiences I have had. The sarcasm and inferences that
>have resulted from my doing so were extremely unpleasant
>and distressing to me personally.
>
>Am I supposed to accept, though, that what's sauce
>for the goose is *not* sauce for the gander? Maybe I ask
>that people are tolerant of some of my posts when it is
>unfair of me to expect such tolerance. I don't know. But
>the frequent suggestion, usually sarcastically made, that
>I am a 'fake', are, to say the least, unwarranted. I continue
>to make an effort, nevertheless, to take such suggestions
>in my stride so that I am usually able to shrug them off
>relatively easily.
>
>If I caused you any offense, I apologise. It was not my
>intention. You, of course, will continue to believe about
>me what you will, and that is your right.
Dena, I think he's calling you a gander.
Dena Jo
> Dena, I think he's calling you a gander.
What will the little gosling think of next?
Charles Riggs
<TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 06 Sep 2003, Christopher Johnson posted thus:
>
>> BTW, you're not very regal or majestic, Dena Jo. You may
>> want to try incorporating a few royal 'touches' in your
>> posts (an occasional 'royal we' for example).
>>
>> Something you might want to work on.
>
>Why? I've never claimed to be regal or majestic. That's something
>you're ascribing to me.
I agree. We have but the one Queen, no?
--
Charles Riggs
For email, take the air out of aircom
and replace with eir
Charles Riggs
Moffat Lorimer) wrote:
>Christopher Johnson wrote, in part:
>
>> Dena Jo... Dena Jo...
>
>Ah hah! You are Richard Fontana, and I claim my $5. Nobody else uses
>names as often as he does.
I realise you're joking, Sara, but I don't recall Christopher once
defining, for us, what a sandwich is, driving us up the wall with
acronyms, boring us silly with caught/cot, or rhapsodizing over New
York.
Christopher is who he says he is, I say, until someone can come up
with valid reasons for thinking otherwise.
R J Valentine
...
} I agree. We have but the one Queen, no?
Yeah, but when is _Monkey's Uncle_ coming out? December?
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Simon R. Hughes
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 17:05:04 -0400, sl560y...@columbia.edu (Sara
> Moffat Lorimer) wrote:
>
> >Christopher Johnson wrote, in part:
> >
> >> Dena Jo... Dena Jo...
> >
> >Ah hah! You are Richard Fontana, and I claim my $5. Nobody else uses
> >names as often as he does.
>
> I realise you're joking, Sara, but I don't recall Christopher once
> defining, for us, what a sandwich is, driving us up the wall with
> acronyms, boring us silly with caught/cot, or rhapsodizing over New
> York.
>
> Christopher is who he says he is, I say, until someone can come up
> with valid reasons for thinking otherwise.
Not only does "he" claim to talk about wet dreams with "his" dad,
"he" tells the rest of the world that "he" has them. That is not the
way a 14 year-old is. Anyone who has been a 14 year-old boy, or has
had anything to do with one, should know that to be true.
I don't care who "he" is, and I won't be having much to do with
"him", but whatever "he" is, "he" ain't a 14 year-old male.
Christopher Johnson
[..]
> I won't be having much to do with "him",
[..]
What a relief!
--
Christopher
Dena Jo
> Not only does "he" claim to talk about wet dreams with "his" dad,
> "he" tells the rest of the world that "he" has them. That is not the
> way a 14 year-old is. Anyone who has been a 14 year-old boy, or has
> had anything to do with one, should know that to be true.
And didn't, at the age 14, know the word "masturbation."
If someone wishes to take Christopher at this word about his age, then
certainly that's their perogative, but no one should say the
disbelievers have no reason to doubt him.
> I don't care who "he" is, and I won't be having much to do with
> "him", but whatever "he" is, "he" ain't a 14 year-old male.
I sort of don't care who he is, but I sort of do too. If it turns out
that he is who he says he is, the disbelievers will probably be
embarrassed, each to a different degree, but will have only themselves
to blame. But if, in fact, Christopher turns out to be a fake, then
he's making a fool of out the people who have defended him and continue
to defend him, and I can't think a single person associated with this
newsgroup that I'd enjoy seeing be made a fool of.
Tony Cooper
<a5799...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>I don't care who "he" is, and I won't be having much to do with
>"him",
Damn! It's enough to make me take a photo of Carmen Diaz to bed with
me and hope it gives me a wet dream to talk about.
Christopher Johnson
I wasn't going to risk dignifying Dena Jo's above-quoted post
by responding to it in any way, but then I changed my mind....
I just think that someone (and it may as well be me) has to
point out the silliest thing about what she wrote (other
than the overall ignorance displayed therein); namely, I don't
think that more than one or two people in this newsgroup have
ever "defended" me as such. They might have agreed with things
I have said, or expressed their belief that I'm not the 'fake'
others have suggested I must be, but I don't think that counts
as 'defending' me. I've been grateful for advice and support when
it has been offered to me, certainly, but it was offered by people
who *chose* to offer it to me; nobody has had a gun held to his
head and been forced to "defend" me. Since I know that I am who
I say I am and that I'm not a fake, my conscience is clear about
this anyway. RF makes a fool out of himself every time he comes
up with a new theory about me, but I've learned to see the twinkle
that's usually somewhere in his eye. If there's a twinkle in
your eye, Dena Jo, I have yet to see it - probably because it's
almost certainly not there in the first place.
The only people making a fool out of themselves right now are
you, Dena Jo, and now I myself, for bothering to comment on the
ignorance displayed in your post.
--
Christopher
John Dean
Brother of the better known Porfirio?
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
R H Draney
>
>tomca...@yaNOSPAMhoo.com wrote:
>
>> Chistopher says "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".
> ^
>
>
>My name is Christopher.
That was the non-rhotic spelling....r (here, use mine!)
oncle
Or Brad Pitt, for some of us boyz...
Anyway, I would have thought that for Christopher, at age
14-and-a-half-and-counting, the only possible antonym for "a wet
dream" is "a good night's sleep".
But then, I'm not 14-and-a-half anymore...
DA
Christopher Johnson
Well, whatever some people here may believe, I *am*
"14-and-a-half"; I just haven't learned to keep my
trap shut when it would be prudent to do so. I'm
catching on though.
Anyway, suffice it to say that neither "Britney
Spears" nor "Brad Pitt" was involved, though either
one of them would *possibly* have been interesting.
Did I say I was catching on? Oh well, I'm a slow
learner....
--
Christopher
oncle
<chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Did I say I was catching on? Oh well, I'm a slow
>learner....
Well, FWIW, just to improve your French, you understand, the resultant
stain on the sheets is called over here "une carte de France". No-one
dares mention on what scale that particular map is drawn...
I hope that at least you managed to get Chicago and its environs in
there before the whole caboodle found itself in the morning-after
washing.
DA
david56
> Speaking of the Sahara, I came across this puzzle in "Being Good" by
> Simon Blackburn:
>
> "A man is about to cross a desert. He has two enemies. In the night the
> first enemy slips into his camp, and puts strychnine in his water bottle.
> Later the same night, the second enemy, not knowing of this, slips into
> his camp and puts a tiny puncture in the water bottle. The man sets off
> across the desert; when the time comes to drink there is nothing in the
> bottle and the man dies of thirst.
>
> Who murdered him? Defence counsel for the first man has a cast-iron
> argument; my client attempted to poison the man, admittedly. But he failed
> because the victim took no poison. Defence counsel for the second man has
> a similary powerful arguement; my client attempted to deprive the man
> of water, admittedly. But he failed, for he only deprived the victim of
> strychnine; and you cannot murder someone by doing that."
Does it matter? Both enemies are guilty of attempted murder.
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I change it periodically.
Christopher Johnson
I *want* to respond to this in some way (as it
made me laugh), but I'm not honestly sure if I
should (or even *could*), so I'd better not.
Ooops! I just did! Oh, well...
Vive La France (surtout sa carte)!
--
Christopher
Mike Oliver
> Does it matter? Both enemies are guilty of attempted murder.
In most jurisdictions the penalties for murder are substantially
more dire than those for attempted murder.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> Anyway, I would have thought that for Christopher, at age
> 14-and-a-half-and-counting, the only possible antonym for
> "a wet dream" is "a good night's sleep".
> But then, I'm not 14-and-a-half anymore...
>
> DA
Mon Dieu! A good night's sleep *is* having a wet dream!
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Ancient cartographer
Dena Jo
I thought the original question was interesting, and I had hoped
someone -- Lieblich, maybe -- would have weighed in with an opinion. I
get as far as: Well, it's not the guy with the strychnine.
Seems to me the plan of the second guy was to deprive the deceased of
water, thereby killing him, and he succeeding in do that.
oncle
<chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>oncle wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Well, FWIW, just to improve your French, you understand, the resultant
>> stain on the sheets is called over here "une carte de France". No-one
>> dares mention on what scale that particular map is drawn...
>> I hope that at least you managed to get Chicago and its environs in
>> there before the whole caboodle found itself in the morning-after
>> washing.
>I *want* to respond to this in some way (as it
>made me laugh), but I'm not honestly sure if I
>should (or even *could*), so I'd better not.
>
>Ooops! I just did! Oh, well...
>
>Vive La France (surtout sa carte)!
The plot thickens, my dear Watson.
Christopher est pratiquement bilingue. Bien sūr, il commet une petite
erreur... intentionnelle..., histoire de nous fourvoyer encore plus:
"Vive _La_ France" au lieu de "la"....
The problem now seems to be his Dad's jealousy when he (Christopher's
Dad) witnessed the extent of Christopher's, shall we say, masculinity,
as evidenced by certain... traces, which he (Christopher) gleefully
flaunted before his Dad at (I'm supposing) breakfast that traumatic
and never-to-be-forgotten morning. Oedipus, schm'Oedipus...
Throwing my hat into the ring, I would now suggest that "Christopher"
is in fact Christopher's 40-something-ish Dad, trying to do the best
he can with this somewhat unruly, undoubtedly intelligent,
drive-impelled teenager, and asking for -- beseeching -- our help. It
was so much easier, you understand, with "Adrian" [remember him?] but
Christopher.. "Oy vavoy, what I have done already that I should be
deserving this?"
Whatever. If all this (including the Deena Jo "Queen" stuff -- where
did he get _that_ from, I wonder?!) doesn't get into Christopher's
next novel, it's certainly going into mine.
Keep it up, Chris! [Oops! Just seen the FBI-snatch warning light
switch on here at the word "up" -- you don't have my credit card
number, do you?]
;-)
DA
Robert Lieblich
I don't recall a case like this coming to trial, and I don't think
it's been on Law and Order, and frankly, DJ, I don't think there's a
satisfactory answer. Any criminal prosecution for homicide requires
proof of causation -- that the defendant did something that killed
the deceased. Intervening causes disprove the defendant's guilt.
The classic example: A pushes B from the window of a very high story
(UK: storey); as B is falling to his certain death, C shoots him
through the heart. A is guilty of attempted murder only.
The twist in the strychnine example is that the second guy tried to
kill the deceased by depriving him of something that would have
killed him anyway. So, yes, the strychnine guy is in the clear,
because his actions plainly did not kill the deceased. The issue as
to the other guy is a lot tougher, because there's no intervening
causation. On the other hand, the deceased would be just as
deceased had the second guy done nothing. So your answer is as good
as any, but I don't think there is a single good answer. That's the
point of the example -- to initiate discussion of the related
issues.
In real life, as long as no one knew about the strychnine guy, the
second guy (assuming someone found out about him) would probably be
tried and convicted of murder.
--
Bob Lieblich
The foregoing opinions are worth what you paid for them
Tony Cooper
<am...@sonic.net> wrote:
>oncle wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Anyway, I would have thought that for Christopher, at age
>> 14-and-a-half-and-counting, the only possible antonym for
>> "a wet dream" is "a good night's sleep".
>> But then, I'm not 14-and-a-half anymore...
>>
>> DA
>
>Mon Dieu! A good night's sleep *is* having a wet dream!
Depends.
Robert Bannister
Dena Jo is certainly no fool, and I for one agree entirely with her
first two paragraphs.
--
Rob Bannister
oncle
<am...@sonic.net> wrote:
>oncle wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Anyway, I would have thought that for Christopher, at age
>> 14-and-a-half-and-counting, the only possible antonym for
>> "a wet dream" is "a good night's sleep".
[snip]
>
>Mon Dieu! A good night's sleep *is* having a wet dream!
Mais non, voyons!. You've just defined a *goooooood* night's sleep.
DA
(No cartographer, but maps out his dreams as well as he can.)
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:38:35 GMT, Christopher Johnson
><chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
>>'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
>>and that's what he said it's called. I looked around on
>>the Net, and I get it already, OK? So, nobody panic, OK?
>>
>>I don't really wanna talk about it, but.... if there're
>>'wet dreams', are there 'dry dreams' too, or what?
>>
>>And.... *if* this is an inappropriate question for this
>>NG, just say so,
>
>So.
So-so, and not up to your usual standard of postings!
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire
England
Dr Robin Bignall
<chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>mb wrote:
>
>> Christopher Johnson <chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> ...
>> > if there're 'wet dreams', are there 'dry dreams' too, or what?
>>
>> Congratulations. Coinage of the month. Fully deserves to successfully
>> make it into the everyday language.
>
>
>This apparent accolade notwithstanding, I just can't
>seem to manage to get past that split infinitive.
You should boldly try to do it.
Dr Robin Bignall
<matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>"Adrian Bailey" <da...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>> "R F" <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> wrote...
>> > On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Dena Jo wrote:
>> > > On 05 Sep 2003, Christopher Johnson posted thus:
>> > >
>> > > > Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
>> > > > 'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
>> > > > and that's what he said it's called.
>> > >
>> > > Aw, well, if anyone has any remaining doubts about CJ's veracity,
>> > > this post should clinch it.
>> > >
>> > > Yup, seems genuine to me...
>> >
>> > My thoughts exactly. CJ, please forgive me for ever doubting you.
>>
>> This is sarcasm, right.
>
>Well this newsgroup emission of CJ's certainly removes any doubts I
>might still have entertained.
>
I bet I could still name at least a couple of apparent doubters.
Dr Robin Bignall
<TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 06 Sep 2003, Christopher Johnson posted thus:
>
>> BTW, you're not very regal or majestic, Dena Jo. You may
>> want to try incorporating a few royal 'touches' in your
>> posts (an occasional 'royal we' for example).
>>
>> Something you might want to work on.
>
>Why? I've never claimed to be regal or majestic. That's something
>you're ascribing to me.
I always thought you were a princess. Have I been misinformed?
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
>
>"Christopher Johnson" <chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3F58F492...@yahoo.com...
>> Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
>> 'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
>> and that's what he said it's called. I looked around on
>> the Net, and I get it already, OK? So, nobody panic, OK?
>>
>> I don't really wanna talk about it, but....
>
>
>If there's anything else you don't want to talk about,
>Chris, remember to post it on Usenet.
>
>It is off-topic here, unless of course someone from AUE
>was in your dream -- in which case, details, please.
In practice, how can anything be off-topic in AUE? Over the years, I'm sure
someone would have noticed anything that did not come up at one time or
another.
Dr Robin Bignall
<chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Sara Moffat Lorimer wrote:
>
>> Christopher Johnson wrote, in part:
>>
>> > Dena Jo... Dena Jo...
>>
>> Ah hah! You are Richard Fontana, and I claim my $5. Nobody else uses
>> names as often as he does.
>
>
>
>Sara, you are truly and absolutely brilliant, Sara!
>Sara, I hereby declare you to be the outright winner
>of $5, Sara!
>
>Sara, do you accept PayPal transactions, Sara?
Right Funny! I think you're really 104, and made a typo on several
occasions.
(No names, no pack drill, but I accept PayPal, used dollar bills, euros,
used car parts, and whatever...)
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin 'Really Foolish' Bignall
R H Draney
>
>Dena Jo wrote:
>>
>> Seems to me the plan of the second guy was to deprive the deceased of
>> water, thereby killing him, and he succeeding in do that.
>
>kill the deceased by depriving him of something that would have
>killed him anyway. So, yes, the strychnine guy is in the clear,
>because his actions plainly did not kill the deceased. The issue as
>to the other guy is a lot tougher, because there's no intervening
>causation. On the other hand, the deceased would be just as
>deceased had the second guy done nothing. So your answer is as good
>as any, but I don't think there is a single good answer. That's the
>point of the example -- to initiate discussion of the related
>issues.
While my understanding is that this is supposed to be an unanswerable question,
I've decided for no real reason to base my response on the cause of
death...since the victim died of dehydration, the person who caused dehydration
is the guilty one...you can't find the strychnine guy guilty of poisoning
someone who died without being poisoned, now can you?...r
Christopher Johnson
> Dena Jo is certainly no fool, and I for one agree entirely with her
> first two paragraphs.
There is, in my view, an enormous semantic difference between
suggesting Dena Jo is a fool and suggesting that she is
currently making a fool out of herself. It was my intention to
suggest the latter, not the former. As for which of Dena Jo's
'pearls of wisdom' you happen to agree with, Rob, well, that,
of course, is entirely your business and of no particular
interest to me.
I know that there are 5 commas in my previous sentence, but I
believe none of them is actually redundant.
--
Christopher
Christopher Johnson
> The plot thickens, my dear Watson.
> Christopher est pratiquement bilingue. Bien sûr, il commet une petite
> erreur... intentionnelle..., histoire de nous fourvoyer encore plus:
> "Vive _La_ France" au lieu de "la"....
Vous n'avez pas raison, mon cher 'oncle'; je n'ai jamais
"fourvoyé" *quiconque* ici -- ça c'est sûr!
> The problem now seems to be his Dad's jealousy when he (Christopher's
> Dad) witnessed the extent of Christopher's, shall we say, masculinity,
> as evidenced by certain... traces, which he (Christopher) gleefully
> flaunted before his Dad at (I'm supposing) breakfast that traumatic
> and never-to-be-forgotten morning. Oedipus, schm'Oedipus...
>
> Throwing my hat into the ring, I would now suggest that "Christopher"
> is in fact Christopher's 40-something-ish Dad, trying to do the best
> he can with this somewhat unruly, undoubtedly intelligent,
> drive-impelled teenager, and asking for -- beseeching -- our help. It
> was so much easier, you understand, with "Adrian" [remember him?] but
> Christopher.. "Oy vavoy, what I have done already that I should be
> deserving this?"
>
> Whatever. If all this (including the Deena Jo "Queen" stuff -- where
> did he get _that_ from, I wonder?!) doesn't get into Christopher's
> next novel, it's certainly going into mine.
>
> Keep it up, Chris! [Oops! Just seen the FBI-snatch warning light
> switch on here at the word "up" -- you don't have my credit card
> number, do you?]
> ;-)
Yes, I think I have your 'number' now. :-)
--
Christopher
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Christopher Johnson filted: [...]
^^^^^^
I've just figured out why RHD's newly coined verb "to filt" bothers
me: He uses it as if it were a weak (regular) verb: "filt, filted,
filted," when in fact it should be treated as a strong (irregular)
verb: "filt, falt, fult," following the <i-a-u> ablaut pattern of
"ring, rang, rung" and "swim, swam, swum."
I have fult.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Filter
R H Draney
I'll have to give this suggestion more thought after I've mulk the cows....r
Charles Riggs
<TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 07 Sep 2003, Simon R. Hughes posted thus:
>
>> Not only does "he" claim to talk about wet dreams with "his" dad,
>> "he" tells the rest of the world that "he" has them. That is not the
>> way a 14 year-old is. Anyone who has been a 14 year-old boy, or has
>> had anything to do with one, should know that to be true.
It hadn't occurred to me that all youngsters are the same, but now I
see your point.
>And didn't, at the age 14, know the word "masturbation."
>
>If someone wishes to take Christopher at this word about his age, then
>certainly that's their perogative, but no one should say the
>disbelievers have no reason to doubt him.
First you're offended when Christopher says this or that, now you
demand I not say this or that when you disparage the lad. Give it a
rest, Dena.
"One should see the flowers' shadow in the water, the bamboos' shadow
under the moon, and the beauty's shadow behind a door screen."
--
Charles Riggs
For email, take the air out of aircom
and replace with eir
Michael West
"Dr Robin Bignall" <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ujmnlv0lir65cj5ho...@4ax.com...
> On 6 Sep 2003 03:07:05 -0500, "Michael West" <mbw...@removebigpond.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Christopher Johnson" <chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3F58F492...@yahoo.com...
> >> Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
> >> 'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
> >> and that's what he said it's called. I looked around on
> >> the Net, and I get it already, OK? So, nobody panic, OK?
> >>
> >> I don't really wanna talk about it, but....
> >
> >
> >If there's anything else you don't want to talk about,
> >Chris, remember to post it on Usenet.
> >
> >It is off-topic here, unless of course someone from AUE
> >was in your dream -- in which case, details, please.
>
> In practice, how can anything be off-topic in AUE? Over the years, I'm sure
> someone would have noticed anything that did not come up at one time or
> another.
I know Herr Doktor calls you an "arsehole", but you're really
a very naughty boy, Robin. Maybe he should think (thing)
again (hi RF!).
--
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
(Expat Yank)
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
>
>"Dr Robin Bignall" <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:ujmnlv0lir65cj5ho...@4ax.com...
>> On 6 Sep 2003 03:07:05 -0500, "Michael West" <mbw...@removebigpond.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Christopher Johnson" <chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3F58F492...@yahoo.com...
>> >> Ummm.... my Dad just told me that I had what's called a
>> >> 'wet dream' last night, coz I asked him about it just now,
>> >> and that's what he said it's called. I looked around on
>> >> the Net, and I get it already, OK? So, nobody panic, OK?
>> >>
>> >> I don't really wanna talk about it, but....
>> >
>> >
>> >If there's anything else you don't want to talk about,
>> >Chris, remember to post it on Usenet.
>> >
>> >It is off-topic here, unless of course someone from AUE
>> >was in your dream -- in which case, details, please.
>>
>> In practice, how can anything be off-topic in AUE? Over the years, I'm sure
>> someone would have noticed anything that did not come up at one time or
>> another.
>
>I know Herr Doktor calls you an "arsehole", but you're really
>a very naughty boy, Robin. Maybe he should think (thing)
>again (hi RF!).
I promised never to mention him, for he does not really exist except in the
more eldritch stories of Lovecraft, but I do not give a shit about what
Herr Doktor calls me.
But being very naughty... I shall try to turn over a new leaf....
.... and fail, miserably.
Simon R. Hughes
> I do not give a shit about what
> Herr Doktor calls me.
Straight line, Rey.
--
Simon R. Hughes <!-- Kill "Kenny" for email. -->
<!-- 67 deg. 17' N; 14 deg. 23' E -->
Jon and Mary Miller
>I dunno, does any self-respecting teen chat with his Dad? I spent my teen
>years avoiding Dad's opinions.
>
As long as you have to ask for the car keys, you have to talk to Dad.
And at least pretend to listen.
A surprising amount of communication actually occurs that way.
Although I do admit that the verb "chat" doesn't really accurately
describe the exchange.
Jon Miller
Jon and Mary Miller
>Speaking of the Sahara, I came across this puzzle in "Being Good" by
>Simon Blackburn:
>
>"A man is about to cross a desert. He has two enemies. In the night the
>first enemy slips into his camp, and puts strychnine in his water bottle.
>Later the same night, the second enemy, not knowing of this, slips into
>his camp and puts a tiny puncture in the water bottle. The man sets off
>across the desert; when the time comes to drink there is nothing in the
>bottle and the man dies of thirst.
>
>Who murdered him? Defence counsel for the first man has a cast-iron
>argument; my client attempted to poison the man, admittedly. But he failed
>because the victim took no poison. Defence counsel for the second man has
>a similary powerful arguement; my client attempted to deprive the man
>of water, admittedly. But he failed, for he only deprived the victim of
>strychnine; and you cannot murder someone by doing that."
>
>
>
Well, in US civil law, the one with the deep pockets must pay damages to
the family of the victim. Including punitive damages. And loss of
consortium to the wife (or wives, since this is the Sahara).
Jon Miller
R F
Not so. If you can demonstrate proximate causation among other things,
for both, then both may be held liable, and will then have a duty to pay
damages regardless of their deep or shallow pocketed status. (For an
example of a shallow-pocketed person on whom a large damages award was
imposed, take Bernhard Goetz, the infamous subway vigilante of the early
'Eighties.) In practice, shallow-pocketed persons aren't usually sued by
tort plaintiffs, however.
Then there's "out of pocket", one of Coop's favorite expressions.
Jon and Mary Miller
>On 07 Sep 2003, Simon R. Hughes posted thus:
>
>
>
>>Not only does "he" claim to talk about wet dreams with "his" dad,
>>"he" tells the rest of the world that "he" has them. That is not the
>>way a 14 year-old is. Anyone who has been a 14 year-old boy, or has
>>had anything to do with one, should know that to be true.
>>
>>
>
>And didn't, at the age 14, know the word "masturbation."
>
I'll bet there are young mothers today with the same lack of vocabulary.
Jon Miller
>If someone wishes to take Christopher at this word about his age, then
>certainly that's their perogative, but no one should say the
>disbelievers have no reason to doubt him.
>
>>I don't care who "he" is, and I won't be having much to do with
>>"him", but whatever "he" is, "he" ain't a 14 year-old male.
>>
>>
>I sort of don't care who he is, but I sort of do too. If it turns out
>that he is who he says he is, the disbelievers will probably be
>embarrassed, each to a different degree, but will have only themselves
>to blame. But if, in fact, Christopher turns out to be a fake,
>
Which Christopher? The original, or the current?
> then he's making a fool of out the people who have defended him and continue
>to defend him, and I can't think a single person associated with this
>newsgroup that I'd enjoy seeing be made a fool of.
>
>
On the other hand, those who choose to make fools of themselves deserve
what they get.
Jon Miller
Christopher Johnson
[..]
> Which Christopher? The original, or the current?
Are you being 'originally' idiotic or just
'currently' idiotic?
> On the other hand, those who choose to make fools of themselves deserve
> what they get.
In your case, that's a self-fulfilling prophesy
if ever there was one.
--
Christopher
Christopher Johnson
> "One should see the flowers' shadow in the water, the bamboos' shadow
> under the moon, and the beauty's shadow behind a door screen."
These words are so poetic, but I've been going nuts trying to find
some clue as to their origin! Of course, if their origin is *you*,
I apologise and I am impressed! Anyway, *please* give me a helping
hand, Charles! I'm tempted to talk about Marjorie Allen Seiffert,
but I'm *far* from certain. Am I even close?
--
Christopher
david56
> david56 wrote:
>
> > Does it matter? Both enemies are guilty of attempted murder.
>
> In most jurisdictions the penalties for murder are substantially
> more dire than those for attempted murder.
There's a mandatory life sentence for murder in the UK; the penalty
for attempted murder is, I think, discretionary, but includes life.
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I change it periodically.
Anna Skipka
I disagree. Jon's sentence was a philosophical statement, not a
prophecy or a prediction. If he had said, for instance, "Those who
exhibit dirty laundry here will live to rue the day," *that* could
have been accurately called a self-fulfilling prophecy.
-skipka
Laura F Spira
Ah, the Spectrists. (Are many US 14 year olds familiar with them, I
wonder?) I have just reminded myself of some of the work of MAS:
You are a raisin, but I am a nut!
What meat there is to you
Can be seen at a glance --
(Seeds, when they exist, are bitter)
My calm, round glossiness,
(For I am sound and free
From wormy restlessness of spirit)
Defies your casual inspection.
It takes sharp teeth
And some determination
To taste my kernel!
Give me Ella Wheeler Wilcox any day.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Harvey Van Sickle
> Christopher Johnson wrote:
>> Charles Riggs wrote:
>>> "One should see the flowers' shadow in the water, the bamboos'
>>> shadow under the moon, and the beauty's shadow behind a door
>>> screen."
>> These words are so poetic, but I've been going nuts trying to
>> find some clue as to their origin! Of course, if their origin is
>> *you*, I apologise and I am impressed! Anyway, *please* give me a
>> helping hand, Charles! I'm tempted to talk about Marjorie Allen
>> Seiffert, but I'm *far* from certain. Am I even close?
>>
> Ah, the Spectrists. (Are many US 14 year olds familiar with them,
> I wonder?)
Aw, c'mon Laura -- given the "doubt squad" in this thread, that's
an unnecessarily snide aside....
There doesn't need to be "many" US 14-year-olds familiar with them --
just the one who mentioned them needs to be familiar with them.
Statistical fact of life: when dealing with the particular, the
general is irrelevant as a measure of anything other than deviation
from the general.
Christopher may or may not be 14 - I suspect he is, but I frankly don't
really care -- but AFAIK he's never claimed to be an average US 14-
year-old. Indeed, he says he's the son of a couple of Oxford dons who
moved to the US when he was 5, which places him well outside that
group.
He also reads AUE -- and since that places him even further towards the
extremes of a bell curve of US 14-year-olds, any reference to "many US
14 year olds" -- in the context of a doubting thread -- isn't really
fair.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
Laura F Spira
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 21:36:41 GMT, Laura F Spira wrote
>
>>Christopher Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>
>
>>>>"One should see the flowers' shadow in the water, the bamboos'
>>>>shadow under the moon, and the beauty's shadow behind a door
>>>>screen."
>>>
>
>>>These words are so poetic, but I've been going nuts trying to
>>>find some clue as to their origin! Of course, if their origin is
>>>*you*, I apologise and I am impressed! Anyway, *please* give me a
>>>helping hand, Charles! I'm tempted to talk about Marjorie Allen
>>>Seiffert, but I'm *far* from certain. Am I even close?
>>>
>>
>
>>Ah, the Spectrists. (Are many US 14 year olds familiar with them,
>>I wonder?)
>
>
> Aw, c'mon Laura -- given the "doubt squad" in this thread, that's
> an unnecessarily snide aside....
Ah well, I haven't read the rest of the thread. I picked up Charles'
post because I was interested in what he had been up to while I was away
and the mention of MAS in Christopher's response caught my eye.
My speculation was neither snide nor an aside: I placed it in
parentheses because it was tangential to my comments, not because I was
expressing doubts about the poster.
>
> There doesn't need to be "many" US 14-year-olds familiar with them --
> just the one who mentioned them needs to be familiar with them.
>
> Statistical fact of life: when dealing with the particular, the
> general is irrelevant as a measure of anything other than deviation
> from the general.
>
> Christopher may or may not be 14 - I suspect he is, but I frankly don't
> really care -- but AFAIK he's never claimed to be an average US 14-
> year-old. Indeed, he says he's the son of a couple of Oxford dons who
> moved to the US when he was 5, which places him well outside that
> group.
You might want to reread my sentence: I did not use the word "average".
>
> He also reads AUE -- and since that places him even further towards the
> extremes of a bell curve of US 14-year-olds, any reference to "many US
> 14 year olds" -- in the context of a doubting thread -- isn't really
> fair.
>
Fair? Who said anything posted in aue had to be fair?
You are reading my words in a context different from that in which they
were written, which raises quite interesting issues about interpretation
of texts.
Let me broaden the question. I wonder how many aue readers, regardless
of age, are familiar with the Spectrists?
Christopher Johnson
[..]
> Let me broaden the question. I wonder how many aue readers, regardless
> of age, are familiar with the Spectrists?
It might help if I just state for the record that I am "familiar"
with *neither* Marjorie Allen Seiffert's writings (they merely came
up while I was doing a Google search of Charles' eloquent words)
*nor* the "Spectrists" (which I have never heard of).
As Laura has (I think) suggested, people sometimes interpret texts
in a way that is bound to lead to misunderstanding. I can 'Google
search' and seem extremely knowledegable about almost anything; I
think this is one of the reasons why some people think I must be
much older than my real age (15 next January).
BTW, Harvey, my parents moved to the US when I was 9, not 5 years
old. I just wanted to clarify that for you. I liked your expression
the "doubt squad"; it was very apt indeed!
--
Christopher
Charles Riggs
<harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 21:36:41 GMT, Laura F Spira wrote
>> Christopher Johnson wrote:
>>> Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>>>> "One should see the flowers' shadow in the water, the bamboos'
>>>> shadow under the moon, and the beauty's shadow behind a door
>>>> screen."
>
>>> These words are so poetic, but I've been going nuts trying to
>>> find some clue as to their origin! Of course, if their origin is
>>> *you*, I apologise and I am impressed! Anyway, *please* give me a
>>> helping hand, Charles! I'm tempted to talk about Marjorie Allen
>>> Seiffert, but I'm *far* from certain. Am I even close?
>>>
>
>> Ah, the Spectrists. (Are many US 14 year olds familiar with them,
>> I wonder?)
>
>Aw, c'mon Laura -- given the "doubt squad" in this thread, that's
>an unnecessarily snide aside....
>
>There doesn't need to be "many" US 14-year-olds familiar with them --
>just the one who mentioned them needs to be familiar with them.
Exactly.
>Statistical fact of life: when dealing with the particular, the
>general is irrelevant as a measure of anything other than deviation
>from the general.
What I've said about the subject of Christopher more than once. It
seems so obvious, yet some can't seem to grasp it.
>Christopher may or may not be 14 - I suspect he is, but I frankly don't
>really care --
I can't understand all the fuss about it. But then I never understood
why Richard created the fuss over the definition of a sandwich. I
wasn't unhappy about it, though. It takes all kinds, thankfully, as is
often demonstrated by the variegated posters to AUE.
Charles Riggs
<chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>> "One should see the flowers' shadow in the water, the bamboos' shadow
>> under the moon, and the beauty's shadow behind a door screen."
>
>
>These words are so poetic, but I've been going nuts trying to find
>some clue as to their origin! Of course, if their origin is *you*,
>I apologise and I am impressed!
Not mine. I'll have to try to impress you in some other way.
> Anyway, *please* give me a helping
>hand, Charles! I'm tempted to talk about Marjorie Allen Seiffert,
>but I'm *far* from certain. Am I even close?
Not very. I took it from the "One Hundred Proverbs" near the close of
_The Wisdom of China and India_, edited by Lin Yutang, an enjoyable
work now out of print. I ran into it at the University of Maine's
library and, much later, had Amazon find a copy for me.
The most interesting sections, to me, are the ones containing old
Buddhist writings, but I'll quote another from the proverbs just the
same:
"Sometimes plant bamboos while there is a drizzling rain; close the
gate and tend the flowers in idleness; take up a pen and leisurely
check up mistakes in old editions; draw spring water and try several
pots of the season's tea."
Charles Riggs
Giving Jon and Mary the benefit of a doubt, they may have been
referring to those making such a fuss over your age or, even more
generously, to people in general who make fools of themselves. But a
fool can be in the eyes of the beholder: Dena avers I, and others, may
be making one of ourselves when we take the word of someone they
don't, so who knows?
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> I know Herr Doktor calls you an "arsehole", but you're
> really a very naughty boy, Robin. Maybe he should think
> (thing) again (hi RF!).
Actually, I accurately describe Bignall as "The Bleedin' Arsehole."
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman