AUE T-Shirt

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Fontana

unread,
Sep 21, 2001, 12:25:55 PM9/21/01
to
The day before yesterday I received in the mail (= UK "post"?) a Totally
Official AUE T-Shirt. It is classical in design yet bold in message. I
shall wear it with pride and with pleasure.

R.F.

Robert Lieblich

unread,
Sep 21, 2001, 4:03:34 PM9/21/01
to

I've had mine for a couple of years now, REF. I wear it with
trousers

... and also with them other things you said.

Bob Cunningham

unread,
Sep 21, 2001, 5:52:25 PM9/21/01
to
On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:03:34 -0400, Robert Lieblich
<Robert....@Verizon.net> said:

>Richard Fontana wrote:

>> The day before yesterday I received in the mail (= UK "post"?) a Totally
>> Official AUE T-Shirt. It is classical in design yet bold in message. I
>> shall wear it with pride and with pleasure.

>I've had mine for a couple of years now, REF. I wear it with
>trousers

Which is better on strawberries: chicken manure or cow manure?

Skitt

unread,
Sep 21, 2001, 6:14:15 PM9/21/01
to

"Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sidnqtcrcrdg84h23...@4ax.com...

I prefer whipped cream.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).


Joe Fineman

unread,
Sep 21, 2001, 6:35:05 PM9/21/01
to
Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> writes:

> The day before yesterday I received in the mail (= UK "post"?) a
> Totally Official AUE T-Shirt.

From what Office can I order one?
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com

||: A scientist wants to be right; a politician wants to have :||
||: been right. :||

boblipton

unread,
Sep 21, 2001, 10:11:27 PM9/21/01
to

Joe Fineman wrote:
>
> Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> writes:
>
> > The day before yesterday I received in the mail (= UK "post"?) a
> > Totally Official AUE T-Shirt.
>
> From what Office can I order one?

You can't. It descends on one as a sign of grace in AUE. I don't wear
mine, but consider it so handsome I have left instructions to be buried
in it.

Bob

Maria Conlon

unread,
Sep 21, 2001, 11:34:11 PM9/21/01
to

Robert Lieblich wrote
>Richard Fontana wrote:

>> The day before yesterday I received in the mail (= UK "post"?) a
Totally
>> Official AUE T-Shirt. It is classical in design yet bold in
message. I
>> shall wear it with pride and with pleasure.

>I've had mine for a couple of years now, REF. I wear it with
>trousers


Ditto -- well, except for the trousers part. I wear mine with slacks
or shorts. I've even worn it with capris and over a bathing suit
["swim suit" to some]. Never with a skirt, though. That wouldn't
do -- a T-shirt with a skirt just isn't "me."

And I've worn it in Michigan, Ontario (Canada), Ohio, Kentucky,
Tennessee, North Carolina, Nevada, and Arizona. And on an airplane
over several other states.

I've worn it out, actually. Garry, can I order a new one?

Maria (Tootsie)

felix

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 11:51:43 AM9/22/01
to
"Maria Conlon" <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote in message news:<9oh0hm$nu7$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...

> Robert Lieblich wrote
> >Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> >> The day before yesterday I received in the mail (= UK "post"?) a
> Totally
> >> Official AUE T-Shirt. It is classical in design yet bold in
> message. I
> >> shall wear it with pride and with pleasure.
>
> >I've had mine for a couple of years now, REF. I wear it with
> >trousers
>
>
> Ditto -- well, except for the trousers part. I wear mine with slacks
> or shorts.

Surely these are kinds of trousers?

> I've even worn it with capris

You've got me here. Some kind of goat-related garment? The mind boggles.

> and over a bathing suit
> ["swim suit" to some]. Never with a skirt, though. That wouldn't
> do -- a T-shirt with a skirt just isn't "me."
>
> And I've worn it in Michigan, Ontario (Canada), Ohio, Kentucky,
> Tennessee, North Carolina, Nevada, and Arizona. And on an airplane
> over several other states.

Nowadays of course, you might be turned back at the gate.


felix

Maria Conlon

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 2:44:33 PM9/22/01
to

felix wrote in message
>"Maria Conlon" wrote in message news
>> Robert Lieblich wrote

>> >I've had mine for a couple of years now, REF. I wear it with
>> >trousers

>> Ditto -- well, except for the trousers part. I wear mine with
slacks
>> or shorts.

>Surely these are kinds of trousers?


In my usage of fashion terms, women don't wear "trousers." They wear
slacks, or even "pants." From past discussions here about "pants," I
guess I shouldn't say that when speakers of BrEng are present. It
makes me look like some sort of weirdo who runs around in men's
underwear.

>> I've even worn it with capris

>You've got me here. Some kind of goat-related garment? The mind
boggles.

Boggle not your mind. Capris (that's a plural) are women's
slacks/pants/bottoms that end just below the knee. "Bottoms," by the
way, refers, in this case, to slacks or skirts or the like. (We wear
"tops" -- T-shirts, blouses, sweaters, etc., with "bottoms" --
slacks, skirts, capris, shorts, etc.)

>> and over a bathing suit
>> ["swim suit" to some]. Never with a skirt, though. That wouldn't
>> do -- a T-shirt with a skirt just isn't "me."
>>
>> And I've worn it in Michigan, Ontario (Canada), Ohio, Kentucky,
>> Tennessee, North Carolina, Nevada, and Arizona. And on an
airplane
>> over several other states.

>Nowadays of course, you might be turned back at the gate.

Not for wearing capris. Or for wearing my aue T-shirt. (Well, maybe
if said T-shirt was over a bathing suit and nothing else. That might
be considered gross indecency.)

Maria (Tootsie)
(Yes, I'm avoiding the possible meaning of your "at the gate"
statement.)


Jacqui

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 4:17:02 PM9/22/01
to
Maria Conlon wrote
> felix wrote
> > Maria Conlon wrote

> >> Robert Lieblich wrote
>
> >> >I've had mine for a couple of years now, REF. I wear it with
> >> >trousers
>
> >> Ditto -- well, except for the trousers part. I wear mine with
> slacks
> >> or shorts.
>
> >Surely these are kinds of trousers?
>
> In my usage of fashion terms, women don't wear "trousers." They wear
> slacks, or even "pants." From past discussions here about "pants," I
> guess I shouldn't say that when speakers of BrEng are present. It
> makes me look like some sort of weirdo who runs around in men's
> underwear.

"Homer Simpson sits on the couch in his vest and pants." If he's wearing
suspenders too, then I will really giggle. ;)

Slacks are definitely different from trousers, in BrE, and what I envisage
by the US "pants" seems to be slightly different from the things I wore to
work today (lycra, no zip or buttons, boot-cut).

> >> I've even worn it with capris
>
> >You've got me here. Some kind of goat-related garment? The mind
> boggles.
>
> Boggle not your mind. Capris (that's a plural) are women's
> slacks/pants/bottoms that end just below the knee. "Bottoms," by the
> way, refers, in this case, to slacks or skirts or the like. (We wear
> "tops" -- T-shirts, blouses, sweaters, etc., with "bottoms" --
> slacks, skirts, capris, shorts, etc.)

Capri pants are one of the few "pants" you'll find it's acceptable to wear
as outerwear in the UK. I don't think there's any other name for them
(except perhaps something convoluted invented by fashion magazines trying to
convince us they're something new). "Cargo pants" nearly was insinuated into
BrE fashion vocabulary a few years back, but they still seem to be known as
"combat trousers" to those of us who pay less than Ł60 for them.

However, here they come to mid-calf, not just below the knee (them's
pedal-pushers otherwise).

Jac

Murray Arnow

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 4:24:36 PM9/22/01
to
"Jacqui" <sirlawren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Homer Simpson sits on the couch in his vest and pants."
>

Homer is an American and proud of it. He wears no stinkin' vest: it's a
stinkin' undershirt.

Truly Donovan

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 4:31:15 PM9/22/01
to

Sometimes you can "earn" one by accident. I did, and then
discovered that there were "rules" associated with its
acceptance. I ignored the rules so as to preserve my status
as the resident AUE anarchist. (It's a tough job, but
somebody has to do it.)

--
Truly Donovan
http://www.trulydonovan.com

Jacqui

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 4:39:50 PM9/22/01
to
Murray Arnow wrote
> Jacqui wrote:
> >
> >"Homer Simpson sits on the couch in his vest and pants."
> >
>
> Homer is an American and proud of it. He wears no stinkin' vest: it's a
> stinkin' undershirt.

Can you say "D'oh"? <g>

The point you missed is thataway---------------------> it's a vest to me.

Jac

Skitt

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 4:50:56 PM9/22/01
to

"Truly Donovan" <tru...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:B+6sO79dmoEl+7Sg2h2=wvmXa=7...@4ax.com...

Now that you have acknowledged the garment's receipt, your AUE anarchist's
license is in grave danger. The best have tried, but sooner or later ...

Murray Arnow

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 5:03:51 PM9/22/01
to

Let me divest you. The point you missed is that Americans wear undershirts.
When Homer starts speaking with an RR he will start wearing a vest.

boblipton

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 5:11:11 PM9/22/01
to

SO there are rules to being an anarchist?

Bob

Jacqui

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 7:23:10 PM9/22/01
to
Murray Arnow wrote
> Jacqui wrote:
> >Murray Arnow wrote
> >> Jacqui wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Homer Simpson sits on the couch in his vest and pants."
> >> >
> >>
> >> Homer is an American and proud of it. He wears no stinkin' vest: it's a
> >> stinkin' undershirt.
> >
> >Can you say "D'oh"? <g>
> >
> >The point you missed is thataway---------------------> it's a vest to me.
> >
>
> Let me divest you. The point you missed is that Americans wear
undershirts.

Undershirt and underpants, yes. Vest and pants - no. Vest and pants in the
UK - yes.

> When Homer starts speaking with an RR he will start wearing a vest.

Sure, but you also wear vests. Does Homer never wear a vest?

"The smart business dresser may wear vest, pants and suspenders."

Over here, he'd be suspected of being an underdressed tranny.

Jac

a1a5...@sprint.ca

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 9:38:25 PM9/22/01
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 21:03:51 GMT, ar...@iname.com (Murray Arnow)
wrote:

But if he is _really_ reformed he will have a shirt, tie and
waistcoat to go with it.

Charles Riggs

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 9:50:12 PM9/22/01
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 14:44:33 -0400, "Maria Conlon"
<mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:


>In my usage of fashion terms, women don't wear "trousers." They wear
>slacks, or even "pants."

Fashion, my eye. Real Women wear either skirts or dresses, as God
intended.

Charles Riggs

Ben Zimmer

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 10:01:49 PM9/22/01
to

Maria Conlon

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 11:37:47 PM9/22/01
to

Charles Riggs wrote in message ...
>Maria Conlon wrote:

>>In my usage of fashion terms, women don't wear "trousers." They
wear
>>slacks, or even "pants."

>Fashion, my eye. Real Women wear either skirts or dresses, as God
>intended.

In the part you snipped, I did mention skirts. They are an option.
But, as God actually and definitely intended, Real Women are not
slaves to *any* particular mode of dress.

And skirts or dresses *only* would be a bit limiting. Should we RWs
swim in a skirt or dress? Go camping in them? Wear them in very cold
temperatures?

Think this through, Charles. Just because some men -- even some
Real Men -- may be "leg men" doesn't mean that RWs should expose
their legs all the time. RWs have more sense.

So there. (Is there an emoticon for sticking one's tongue out? If
so, I'd be tempted to use it right now. And in that other thread
about "this is she." Implying that I'm either a "transsexual or even
a transvestite" because I say "this is she" is, to use your word,
silly.)

Maria, RW

Jack Gavin

unread,
Sep 22, 2001, 11:37:41 PM9/22/01
to
"Maria Conlon" <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:9ojl4c$kno$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...

>
> So there. (Is there an emoticon for sticking one's tongue out? If
> so, I'd be tempted to use it right now.

:p

--
Jack Gavin


Charles Riggs

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 12:12:00 AM9/23/01
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 23:37:47 -0400, "Maria Conlon"
<mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:

>
>Charles Riggs wrote in message ...
>>Maria Conlon wrote:
>
>>>In my usage of fashion terms, women don't wear "trousers." They
>wear
>>>slacks, or even "pants."
>
>>Fashion, my eye. Real Women wear either skirts or dresses, as God
>>intended.
>
>In the part you snipped, I did mention skirts. They are an option.
>But, as God actually and definitely intended, Real Women are not
>slaves to *any* particular mode of dress.

If God intended men and women to be the same, to dress the same, He
would have made them the same.

>And skirts or dresses *only* would be a bit limiting. Should we RWs
>swim in a skirt or dress?

Certainly not. Then I'd expect them to be in the buff.

>Go camping in them?

When camping, it is right and fitting for them to wear an apron over
their skirts as they bend over the fire, cooking for the men, who have
just returned from hunting and fishing for their meals.

>Wear them in very cold
>temperatures?

Again in the buff. This time in bed.

>Think this through, Charles. Just because some men -- even some
>Real Men -- may be "leg men" doesn't mean that RWs should expose
>their legs all the time. RWs have more sense.

Yours is not to argue. Did you have some silly idea that your legs
were for made for walking rather than for our admiration?

>So there. (Is there an emoticon for sticking one's tongue out? If
>so, I'd be tempted to use it right now.

:-(===



>And in that other thread
>about "this is she." Implying that I'm either a "transsexual or even
>a transvestite" because I say "this is she" is, to use your word,
>silly.)

I was reacting not to that but to someone who said, "This is he/she",
which was the question asked.

Charles Riggs

Maria Conlon

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 12:26:12 AM9/23/01
to

Jack Gavin wrote in message

>"Maria Conlon" wrote in message

>> So there. (Is there an emoticon for sticking one's tongue out? If
>> so, I'd be tempted to use it right now.

> :p


Thank you, Jack.

Be prepared, Charles (and maybe others). Now I'm armed with a
smart-aleck emoticon -- a worthy and fitting weapon for me to use.

(Jack -- Could I add a nose? Like this... :-p ? Or does that mean
something else?)

Maria


Jack Gavin

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 12:23:31 AM9/23/01
to
"Maria Conlon" <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:9ojnss$v35$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...

Sure, you can stick your nose in it.

--
Jack Gavin


Maria Conlon

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 12:55:09 AM9/23/01
to

Charles Riggs wrote in message ...
>Maria Conlon wrote:
>>Charles Riggs wrote in message ...
>>>Maria Conlon wrote:

>>>>In my usage of fashion terms, women don't wear "trousers." They
>>wear
>>>>slacks, or even "pants."

>>>Fashion, my eye. Real Women wear either skirts or dresses, as God
>>>intended.

>>In the part you snipped, I did mention skirts. They are an option.
>>But, as God actually and definitely intended, Real Women are not
>>slaves to *any* particular mode of dress.

>If God intended men and women to be the same, to dress the same, He
>would have made them the same.


There are some similarities, you know. Two arms, two legs, head,
torso...most of the other stuff -- the differences -- have nothing
to do with clothes. Well nothing much. Well...oh, hell, never mind.

>>And skirts or dresses *only* would be a bit limiting. Should we
RWs
>>swim in a skirt or dress?

>Certainly not. Then I'd expect them to be in the buff.

Oh, right. On the beach in front of God and everybody. Or would you
keep your RW away from everyone else?

>>Go camping in them?

>When camping, it is right and fitting for them to wear an apron
over
>their skirts as they bend over the fire, cooking for the men, who
have
>just returned from hunting and fishing for their meals.

Unless that apron or skirt goes down to the ground in the back while
your RW is bending over, all those men are going to get a free show.
Go back to the drawing board, Charles.

>>Wear them in very cold
>>temperatures?

>Again in the buff. This time in bed.


Hmm. I guess I can't argue with that one. This would be with an
electric blanket, right? While the RM is outside, shoveling snow,
and freezing his butt off? Sounds okay to me.

>>Think this through, Charles. Just because some men -- even some
>>Real Men -- may be "leg men" doesn't mean that RWs should expose
>>their legs all the time. RWs have more sense.

>Yours is not to argue. Did you have some silly idea that your legs
>were for made for walking rather than for our admiration?


Oh, dear. When you put it that way, I must admit I've been
oh-so-silly. I'm so lucky I have you Real Men to keep me on the
right path. (That's said with a sweet smile that means you're in big
trouble.)

>>So there. (Is there an emoticon for sticking one's tongue out? If
>>so, I'd be tempted to use it right now.

>:-(===


I think Jack's is better. The tongue in your illustration is too
long. No offense, of course.

>>And in that other thread
>>about "this is she." Implying that I'm either a "transsexual or
even
>>a transvestite" because I say "this is she" is, to use your word,
>>silly.)

>I was reacting not to that but to someone who said, "This is
he/she",
>which was the question asked.

But I'm the person who answered the question by saying I say it.
That's right. This is she, the one who says it.

:-p

Maria, RW.

a1a5...@sprint.ca

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 12:53:47 AM9/23/01
to

I have not looked yet, but I _did_ say _really_. Of course the
keyword is the conditional. But, come to think of it, ties do seem to
be disappearing even in some civilised circles.

Tony Cooper

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 1:04:54 AM9/23/01
to
Charles Riggs wrote:

> Yours is not to argue. Did you have some silly idea that your legs
> were for made for walking rather than for our admiration?

I don't know your personal situation, but I get the idea
that you do not have one of these around the house on a
permanent basis. Legs are absolutely essential if you
expect them to fetch things.

If they didn't have legs, how could you say "As long as
you're up, would you get me a ........"

Maria Conlon

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 1:13:56 AM9/23/01
to
Maria Conlon (that's me) said
>Charles Riggs said

>>I was reacting not to that but to someone who said, "This is
>he/she",
>>which was the question asked.

>But I'm the person who answered the question by saying I say it.
>That's right. This is she, the one who says it.


Oh -- now I get it. He/she. I missed that before. But the emoticon
still applies for all other stuff.

:-p

Maria, RW.


R J Valentine

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 1:48:03 AM9/23/01
to

Not to be confused with :q (a vi user trying to get out of emacs).

(Possibly mangled from a dim memory of an old list of emoticons.)

--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>

Richard Fontana

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 2:34:56 AM9/23/01
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Jacqui wrote:

> Slacks are definitely different from trousers, in BrE, and what I envisage
> by the US "pants" seems to be slightly different from the things I wore to
> work today (lycra, no zip or buttons, boot-cut).

US "pants" is really a highly general term, and can refer to a whole range
of trouser-like garments worn by men, women, or both. Jeans, for example,
are, in my dialect at least, a subcategory of "pants".

I think what you wore to work yesterday might indeed be considered a
subcategory of US "pants", but I'd have to see a picture of them or a more
detailed description to be certain.

"Slacks" is a generic term that I think is a broad subcategory of "pants",
but to me it's an old-fashioned term that I wouldn't use. It's possible
it has survived more in women's clothing-specific usages.


Charles Riggs

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 3:45:21 AM9/23/01
to
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 01:04:54 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>> Yours is not to argue. Did you have some silly idea that your legs
>> were for made for walking rather than for our admiration?
>
>I don't know your personal situation, but I get the idea
>that you do not have one of these around the house on a
>permanent basis.

I'm considering getting a part-time maid. That's as close as I care to
get to what you are implying.

> Legs are absolutely essential if you
>expect them to fetch things.
>
>If they didn't have legs, how could you say "As long as
>you're up, would you get me a ........"

If I remember the wench I married at all, that's what she'd say to
*me*.

Charles Riggs

Charles Riggs

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 3:45:21 AM9/23/01
to
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 00:55:09 -0400, "Maria Conlon"
<mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:

>
>Charles Riggs wrote in message ...

>>:-(===


>
>
>I think Jack's is better. The tongue in your illustration is too
>long.

Ah, so you *think*, but you haven't *seen* my tongue.

Charles Riggs

John Varela

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 12:26:49 PM9/23/01
to
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 06:34:56, Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu>
wrote:

> "Slacks" is a generic term that I think is a broad subcategory of "pants",
> but to me it's an old-fashioned term that I wouldn't use. It's possible
> it has survived more in women's clothing-specific usages.

To me, "slacks" means a pair of pants/trousers that are made of quality
goods, like suit pants, but not paired with a suit jacket. Since hardly
anyone wears a suit any more the distinction is moot and the word is
becoming obsolete, at least for men's clothing.

Now they've invented that awful term, "smart casual".

--
John Varela
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when
they do it from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal

Tony Cooper

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 1:20:16 PM9/23/01
to
John Varela wrote:
>
> To me, "slacks" means a pair of pants/trousers that are made of quality
> goods, like suit pants, but not paired with a suit jacket. Since hardly
> anyone wears a suit any more the distinction is moot and the word is
> becoming obsolete, at least for men's clothing.
>
> Now they've invented that awful term, "smart casual".
>

The host of a local radio showed interviewed a "fashion
consultant" for men recently. The consultant was pitching
his services of picking out wardrobes for businessmen for
"casual Friday" wear. Casual wear, in his opinion, was not
to be picked out casually. The "power tie" concept has
matches in casual wear. I flipped off the program before
hearing what they are.

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 2:43:45 PM9/23/01
to
boblipton <bobl...@earthlink.net> writes:

> Joe Fineman wrote:
> >
> > Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> >
> > > The day before yesterday I received in the mail (= UK "post"?) a
> > > Totally Official AUE T-Shirt.
> >
> > From what Office can I order one?
>
> You can't. It descends on one as a sign of grace in AUE. I don't
> wear mine, but consider it so handsome I have left instructions to
> be buried in it.

Upon what event are they to be so buried?

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I like giving talks to industry,
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |because one of the things that I've
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |found is that you really can't
|learn anything at the Harvard
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |Business School.
(650)857-7572 | Clayton Christensen
| Harvard Business School
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/


Maria Conlon

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 5:03:43 PM9/23/01
to

Charles Riggs wrote

>Maria Conlon wrote:
>>Charles Riggs wrote in message ...

>>>:-(===

>>I think Jack's is better. The tongue in your illustration is too
>>long.

>Ah, so you *think*, but you haven't *seen* my tongue.

Lots of people have seen your tongue -- it's no doubt visible when
you talk. But you seem inordinately proud of it -- so much so that
you neglected to address any of my other comments in the previous
post.

Did I get the best of you, hunkums? Leave you speechless, so to
speak? Win the day?

I guess I did. It's happened before. It's always fun, too.

;-) <----- no tongue *this* time.

Maria, RW.


a1a5...@sprint.ca

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 5:41:03 PM9/23/01
to
On 23 Sep 2001 11:43:45 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:

>boblipton <bobl...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> Joe Fineman wrote:
>> >
>> > Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> writes:
>> >
>> > > The day before yesterday I received in the mail (= UK "post"?) a
>> > > Totally Official AUE T-Shirt.
>> >
>> > From what Office can I order one?
>>
>> You can't. It descends on one as a sign of grace in AUE. I don't
>> wear mine, but consider it so handsome I have left instructions to
>> be buried in it.
>
>Upon what event are they to be so buried?
>
>--
>Evan Kirshenbaum

Ask rather what instructions are to be so buried. Bob is not shy and
we are all curious.


Truly Donovan

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 5:55:43 PM9/23/01
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 13:50:56 -0700, "Skitt"
<sk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Now that you have acknowledged the garment's receipt, your AUE anarchist's
>license is in grave danger. The best have tried, but sooner or later ...

I considered that, but I think my license is intact because
the alleged effect of my failing to acknowledge receipt was
the inability to consider the competition completed. Since
they have gone on to have another such competition (but
without the categorization that put me in their sights in
the first place, which is surely significant), one must
assume thereby that the previous competition is considered
complete. So they trashed one of their own rules, which any
anarchist worth the salt has to consider a victory over
bureaucracy.

--
Truly Donovan
http://www.trulydonovan.com

Richard Fontana

unread,
Sep 23, 2001, 8:39:27 PM9/23/01
to
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, John Varela wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 06:34:56, Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > "Slacks" is a generic term that I think is a broad subcategory of "pants",
> > but to me it's an old-fashioned term that I wouldn't use. It's possible
> > it has survived more in women's clothing-specific usages.
>
> To me, "slacks" means a pair of pants/trousers that are made of quality
> goods, like suit pants, but not paired with a suit jacket.

I guess I do have the term "dress slacks" for something like that, but I
might also say "trousers" (perhaps a bit less naturally). They're a kind
of pants of course.

Mark Barratt

unread,
Sep 24, 2001, 3:28:22 PM9/24/01
to

My bet is: "DANGER - DO NOT EXHUME".

John Estill

unread,
Sep 26, 2001, 5:20:13 PM9/26/01
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 21:11:11 GMT, boblipton <bobl...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>
>
>Truly Donovan wrote:


>>
>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 02:11:27 GMT, boblipton
>> <bobl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Joe Fineman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > The day before yesterday I received in the mail (= UK "post"?) a
>> >> > Totally Official AUE T-Shirt.
>> >>
>> >> From what Office can I order one?
>> >
>> >You can't. It descends on one as a sign of grace in AUE. I don't wear
>> >mine, but consider it so handsome I have left instructions to be buried
>> >in it.
>>

>> Sometimes you can "earn" one by accident. I did, and then
>> discovered that there were "rules" associated with its
>> acceptance. I ignored the rules so as to preserve my status
>> as the resident AUE anarchist. (It's a tough job, but
>> somebody has to do it.)
>
>SO there are rules to being an anarchist?

There have to be. Otherwise, we would have anarchy.

Regards,
John
--
John Estill
Native English speaker (midwestern variety), español al estilo mexicano
Millersburg, Ohio, U.S.A.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages