october 17, 1998
Stan (the Man)
> Randilee Ryder <rry...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> "Stan (the Man)" <veri...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Of course, after a half dozen buds, you'll need an interpreter to
> understand
> >> a
> >> >word she says.
> >>
>
> >On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, melanie martin tierney wrote:
>
> >> my mouth'll work just fine, thenk *yewwww* very much!
> >>
> >> melanie, aka mom
> >
> >
> >So, I see that the volunteer interpreter is perhaps making false
> >accusations against our esteemed hostess. Any previous wrevellers
wish
to
> >to comment on this, so that I may ascertain the quilt or innocence of
Stan
> >(the man). This seems to have been a slanderous assault upon her
> >character. Any witnesses please come forward and testify on one or
the
> >others behalf.
> >
> >Judge Mistress Flower
Ok, folks. Freud lesson time! Let's take a hack at Melanie's true
inner
smokiness, shall we?
> randilee, he's just jealous. pound for pound, inch for inch,
"Pound for pound, inch for inch..." Sorta gets the ol' pump a-thumpin',
don't it?
> i can suck down more buds than he can and still walk away from the
encounter
> relatively unscathed.
Now, some people would *drink* 'em, but whatever butters your toast.
> it's also recently been brought to his attention that i'm more than
willing to
> stick one of those disgusting cigars into my mouth, slobber on it, and
say i
> enjoyed it...all to make him feel more at ease.
Do we really need any clarification of this?
> i think what we have here is a classic case of "the man feels a wee
bit
> intimidated" and we'll just have to let him lick his wounds for a
while.
And, by "wound," she means...well, *we* know what she means, don't we?
<winky>
> all that said, he and i are friends, and he's well aware of my
superiority in
> all matters.
You may take a superior position any time you like, MEL!
> so there.
Pffft!
--
Stan (walkin' on the wild side!)
***************
Check out the H.E.L.P. Signed-Book Sale at http://www.lutzbooks.com
Famous authors and cyber friends share their writing talents to HELP
stop
cyberstalking.
Read the story!
http://members.tripod.com/~cyberstalked/
***************
Kemnitzer,Trollman
<veri...@juno.com> wrote:
<an utterly incomprehensible midthread response to utterly
incomprehenisble midthread responses.>
I don't know where this subject header came from, or where it thought
it was going, but this date -- October 17, 1998 -- means only one
thing to _me_ (being all self-centered and provincial and all):
One day and one year shy of the tenth anniversary of the Pretty Big
One (The Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 18, 1989: 7.1 on the
relatively meaningless Richter)
Lucy Kemnitzer
Stan (the Man)
Kemnitzer,Trollman wrote:
Sorry. It was a follow-up to a post in a/s that didn't show up. I
re-posted it to the wrong group.
--
Stan
melanie martin tierney
"Stan (the Man)" <veri...@juno.com> wrote:
>Sorry. It was a follow-up to a post in a/s that didn't show up. I
>re-posted it to the wrong group.
but it did show up in skunks. and i replied. didn't you see it?
Susan Hough
: In article <35b73fd...@enews.newsguy.com>, rit...@cruzio.com wrote:
:
: >On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 23:52:55 -0400, "Stan (the Man)"
: ><veri...@juno.com> wrote:
: >
: >One day and one year shy of the tenth anniversary of the Pretty Big
: >One (The Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 18, 1989: 7.1 on the
: >relatively meaningless Richter)
: [Didn't the earthquake occur on the 17th?]
Hey, I can answer this one. Loma Prieta was 5:04 *local* time
on 10/17, but it was after midnight GMT time on 10/18.
99.9% of the time, seismologists only ever refer to GMT when
they give earthquake dates/times, but then it is just a tad
awkward when the rest of the world thinks a particular
noteworthy earthquake occurred on a different date.
So much easier when CA earthquakes happen in the morning.
Sue, still off topic (but go to H*ll if you want to be a jerk about it)
Kemnitzer,Trollman
Hough) wrote:
>Jensen (a...@peavine.com) wrote:
>: In article <35b73fd...@enews.newsguy.com>, rit...@cruzio.com wrote:
>:
>: >On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 23:52:55 -0400, "Stan (the Man)"
>: ><veri...@juno.com> wrote:
>: >
>: >One day and one year shy of the tenth anniversary of the Pretty Big
>: >One (The Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 18, 1989: 7.1 on the
>: >relatively meaningless Richter)
>:
>: [Didn't the earthquake occur on the 17th?]
>
>Hey, I can answer this one. Loma Prieta was 5:04 *local* time
>on 10/17,
<snip explanation why anybody else might be confused>
Thanks, but I don't get that excuse -- I was about ten miles from the
epicenter at the time, so my calendar, such as it was, said the 17th.
The reason I fudged this is that both of my children were born on
_April 18th_, which is the anniversary of the Great San Francisco Fire
and Earthquake. It's a simple case of conflating two dates with
similar resonance.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Jack Mingo
>
> Thanks, but I don't get that excuse -- I was about ten miles from the
> epicenter at the time, so my calendar, such as it was, said the 17th.
Did it stop frozen on that date because of the earthquake? Wow!
Which reminds me--since digital clocks and watches have taken over, one
huge murder mystery cliche (the timepiece stopped by the bullet) has
fallen by the wayside.
Jack ("Look, Lieutenant! Here's a clue! His VCR's clock is flashing
12:00 12:00 12:00...") Mingo
Kemnitzer,Trollman
wrote:
>Kemnitzer,Trollman wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, but I don't get that excuse -- I was about ten miles from the
>> epicenter at the time, so my calendar, such as it was, said the 17th.
>
>
>Did it stop frozen on that date because of the earthquake? Wow!
No, it got all wet from aquarium water and then it mildewed when we
left it in the semiruined house for three months and then you couldn't
turn the pages.
>
>Which reminds me--since digital clocks and watches have taken over, one
>huge murder mystery cliche (the timepiece stopped by the bullet) has
>fallen by the wayside.
>
>Jack ("Look, Lieutenant! Here's a clue! His VCR's clock is flashing
>12:00 12:00 12:00...") Mingo
Yes, well, we have better time-of-death from medical evidence now
though.
Lucy Kemnitzer
RichRMoore
>Which reminds me--since digital clocks and watches have taken over, one
>huge murder mystery cliche (the timepiece stopped by the bullet) has
>fallen by the wayside.
Unless the incident in question involved massive amounts of water, such as a
drowning. A few weeks back, while on vacation in the Michigan hinterlands, I
was putzing around a lake on a personal water craft (i.e, jet ski, wave-runner,
etc.) with two young ladies on the back. We were swamped by a boat's wake
while sitting still, and momemtarily submerged (ok... nearly drowned - I got
hit on the noggin by the PWC when it flipped and had to find my way to the
surface with the unfailing assistance of the life jacket (most wonderful
invention, that!)). My less-than-waterproof electronic (not digital, analog -
I hate digitals) watch shorted and died on the spot. I can now tell you
exactly what time of day and the day of the month (but not the month - the
calendar function only includes the day numbers) the incident occurred.
Rich
(The drowning occurred at precisely 7:34 on the 9th of the month. AM? PM?
Which month? dunno)
Susan Hough
: On 28 Jul 1998 04:56:14 GMT, ho...@amelia.gps.caltech.edu (Susan
: Hough) wrote:
:
: >Jensen (a...@peavine.com) wrote:
: >: In article <35b73fd...@enews.newsguy.com>, rit...@cruzio.com wrote:
: >:
: >: >On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 23:52:55 -0400, "Stan (the Man)"
: >: ><veri...@juno.com> wrote:
: >: >
: >: >One day and one year shy of the tenth anniversary of the Pretty Big
: >: >One (The Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 18, 1989: 7.1 on the
: >: >relatively meaningless Richter)
: >:
: >: [Didn't the earthquake occur on the 17th?]
: >
: >Hey, I can answer this one. Loma Prieta was 5:04 *local* time
: >on 10/17,
: Thanks, but I don't get that excuse -- I was about ten miles from the
: epicenter at the time, so my calendar, such as it was, said the 17th.
True. But in the technical literature, GMT is the standard, and Loma Prieta
happened on 10/18 in England. It may sound a little nuts, but it would
result in mayhem if technical papers talked about earthquake dates/times
in local time--readers would be scrambling to figure out what other
countries' time zones are, and whether or not this or that state uses
daylight savings time, and so on.
Locally, of course, it was 10/17. And most of us who wrote papers did
our best to skirt the issue (more or less), by referring to both local and
GMT time in the body of the text and including neither date in our titles.
But a couple of papers were published with titles that mentioned the date
(i.e., '...the Loma Prieta, CA earthquake of Oct 18, 1989...').
Now, if anyone wants to hear the controversy that arose over this
earthquake's MAGNITUDE (it was 6.9, not 7.1), or its NAME, you can
let me know...and then pull up a chair...
Sue
Kemnitzer,Trollman
Hough) wrote:
Yeah, let's talk about that. Here at the epicenter, the magnitude of
the quake changed daily. Not to mention the magnitude of the
aftershocks.
_We_ still call it 7.1, because during the controversy over its
magnitude it was neatly revealed that the Richter doesn't mean squat
anyway.
As for its name -- it is the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Why would
anybody call it anything else?
Ever been up Loma Prieta? Nice hill. Nice view. Not quite 2000 feet
above sea level, which doesn't sound like much until you realize that
it gets there from sea level in about 8 miles, some of which is marine
terrace and stuff. All made of not very ancient sea bottom for a long
way down, with kind of youngish granite at the very bottom. But
that's a couple of miles down. Just like Sister Kate: shook that
thing like a jelly on a plate.
Anybody who cares to visit, I'll take you on an earthquake tour, but
there's not as much to see now. Still some holes in the ground and
stuff.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Susan Hough
: On 31 Jul 1998 22:18:46 GMT, ho...@amelia.gps.caltech.edu (Susan
: Hough) wrote:
:
: >Now, if anyone wants to hear the controversy that arose over this
: >earthquake's MAGNITUDE (it was 6.9, not 7.1), or its NAME, you can
: >let me know...and then pull up a chair...
:
: Yeah, let's talk about that. Here at the epicenter, the magnitude of
: the quake changed daily. Not to mention the magnitude of the
: aftershocks.
Sometimes you have to cut seismologists a BIT of slack--we've
gotten pretty good at 'real time' information, but it's still hard
for the first word to be the last word. More data comes in, more
analysis is done, things change a little bit.
: _We_ still call it 7.1, because during the controversy over its
: magnitude it was neatly revealed that the Richter doesn't mean squat
: anyway.
First, you NEVER heard the Richter magnitude. Richter magnitude doesn't
work for earthquakes over about M6. Seismologists report 'moment magnitude'
for large events, and let reporters call it Richter if they must. (And
if 'Forsehock' were published, everyone would know this ;o). Anyway.
Moment magnitude certainly does mean squat-- the difference between
6.9 and 7.1 is non-trivial, and it is resolvable. In the immediate
aftermath of Loma Prieta, some of us had the sense that others of us
were happy to latch onto the highest reported magnitude (that 7.1).
Why? Well, one reason is that according to this old classification
scheme for earthquakes, a M6.9 is 'moderate' while a M7.1 is 'large'.
I don't think it mattered for anything but psychology, but then sometimes
psychology is important.
It really was a 6.9, though.
: As for its name -- it is the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Why would
: anybody call it anything else?
Because the scientific community can get perversely proprietary about
these things sometimes. After Loma Prieta, one particular
earth science institution was calling it the Santa Cruz Mountains
earthquake, but the rest of the community followed the lead
of the USGS in Menlo Park. There are advantages to being the
800-lb gorilla in town, but you don't always have the unwavering
affection of all of your fellow simians %o}
: Ever been up Loma Prieta? Nice hill. Nice view. Not quite 2000 feet
Nice poison oak, too. Not.
%o}
Sue