I admit I fall asleep watching TV, but I still can't believe it, I must have been dreaming or in a twisted stage of alpha sleep ...
bozo
together on a penal planet at the end of a Star Trek episode called
The Wrath of Khan? Please tell me it's not true or that I was
hallucinating or watching a perverted SNL skit.
-BdN-
Wayne Throop
: or did I really hear Ricardo Montalban and MacGyver agree to shack up
: together on a penal planet at the end of a Star Trek episode called
: The Wrath of Khan? Please tell me it's not true or that I was
: hallucinating or watching a perverted SNL skit.
I would have expected crossposting to a more obscure newsgroup
to do troll scoring. Possibly I was misinformed about how trolling
is normally done.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
bozo
must have been dreaming or in a twisted stage of alpha sleep or did I
really hear Ricardo Montalban and MacGyver agree to shack up together
on a penal planet at the end of a Star Trek episode called The Wrath
of Khan? Please tell me it's not true or that I was
hallucinating or watching a perverted SNL skit.
-BdN-
I would have expected crossposting to a more obscure newsgroup
to do troll scoring. Possibly I was misinformed about how trolling
is normally done.
Wayne Throop
Oh I'm sorry Wayne but I have enough obscurity already thank you.
-BdN-
Bill Snyder
<Bozo_D...@37.com> wrote:
>Oh I'm sorry Wayne but I have enough obscurity already thank you.
Tosh. If you had anything like enough obscurity, you wouldn't be
troubling us. I suggest you give up teh Interwebz and relocate to
Tierra del Fuego.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
bozo
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:58:12 -0700 (PDT), bozo
>
> >Oh I'm sorry Wayne but I have enough obscurity already thank you.
>
> Tosh. If you had anything like enough obscurity, you wouldn't be
> troubling us. I suggest you give up teh Interwebz and relocate to
> Tierra del Fuego.
>
> --
> Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Dear Bill: Please excuse me for asking but do your intentional typos
echo an actual speech impediment or is it the other way around?
-BdN-
Dorothy J Heydt
They're a modern dialect of 133tspeak. Where have you been?
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Bill Snyder
They are intended to imply that you are, well, a bozo. Now kindly
eat shit, die in agony, and roast in hell.
bozo
I must have hit a sore spot huh.
I betcha it's kinda fun to watch you talk though.
15 7|-|15 j00Z, b1LL?: http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/page/leet-9991.jpg
-bozo de niro-
bozo
> In article <8ad592c7-8434-456e-b9e9-765916155...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
So Dorothy, 93771|\|9 b4(|< 70 r1(4rD0 /\/\0|\|74LB4|\| 4|\|D /\/\4(9'/
\/3r, \/\/|-|0'$ 70P 4|\|D \/\/|-|0'$ b0770/\/\?
-bdn-
Bill Snyder
<Bozo_D...@37.com> wrote:
>On Oct 19, 1:18 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:20:39 -0700 (PDT), bozo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 18, 8:36 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:58:12 -0700 (PDT), bozo
>>
>> >> <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
>> >> >Oh I'm sorry Wayne but I have enough obscurity already thank you.
>>
>> >> Tosh. If you had anything like enough obscurity, you wouldn't be
>> >> troubling us. I suggest you give up teh Interwebz and relocate to
>> >> Tierra del Fuego.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
>>
>> >Dear Bill: Please excuse me for asking but do your intentional typos
>> >echo an actual speech impediment or is it the other way around?
>>
>> They are intended to imply that you are, well, a bozo. Now kindly
>> eat shit, die in agony, and roast in hell.
>I must have hit a sore spot huh.
>
>I betcha it's kinda fun to watch you talk though.
>
>15 7|-|15 j00Z, b1LL?: http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/page/leet-9991.jpg
Like I said, clearly a bozo. No proper .sig, check. Too stupid
or lazy to snip, check. Cross-posting asshole trolltard, check.
Robert Carnegie
Well, it's a movie. Montalban and the cast of _Fame_ were marooned by
Captain Kirk on an island planet (hmm...) since the 1960s and had to
make their own costumes.
But I do not remember the reprise of "Somewhere" (_West Side Story_)
as they(?) set off the Genesis Device. You're thinking of the
original-Trek episode where Kirk found a space icebox full of the
Eugenics Wars people, and sent them to the isolated planet /then/.
Have you ever read Milton? I haven't really. Quotations.
bozo
Yeah, I do recall Khan's homage to Milton in the last scene, but don't
know why either. Maybe you or some other literary type here can fill
me in why it was relevant. Getting back to the image conjured by the
name of his love interest, MacGyver, I'm still wondering if there's a
CGI remake in the wind waiting to relaunch the characters Roarke,
Tattoo, and MacGyver onto another Fantasy Island?
http://www.brooklynvegan.com/img/music2/fantasyisland.jpg
http://www.appart.com/Blog/image.axd?picture=2009/6/macgyver.jpg
-bozo de niro-
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
> You're thinking of the original-Trek episode where Kirk found a space
> icebox full of the Eugenics Wars people, and sent them to the isolated
> planet /then/.
>
"bozo <Bozo_D...@37.com>" replied:
> Yeah, I do recall Khan's homage to Milton in the last scene, but
> don't know why either.
It's a reference to _Paradise Lost_, in which Lucifer says that it is
better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. (Kirk actually explains
the remark, presumably for the audience.) Khan would rather be king
of his own wilderness than a cog in the Federation machine.
A friend of mine recommends that if you read _Paradise Lost_, you
probably want to first read _A Preface to Paradise Lost_, by CS Lewis,
as the culture has shifted quite a bit over the centuries. Also, a
footnoted edition of _Paradise Lost_ may be beneficial, but isn't
necessary because many words and references that are unfamiliar in
detail are understandable in context.
For example, Milton refers to "adamantine chains", where "adamant" is
an old word for "diamond". But even if you don't know that, it's clear
from context that these are special chains, even if you don't get the
full sense of "extraordinarily unyielding". (I note that modern
readers might pick up on a resemblance to "adamantium".)
_Paradise Lost_ is an amazing piece of work (sort of has to be to still
be popular centuries later), and I recommend it. (I know someone who
only read _Moby Dick_ because Captain Picard had read it, and was quite
glad to have done so. I never thought to ask if he'd read _Paradise
Lost_; if not that would seem to settle the "Kirk vs Picard" question.)
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
to reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven."
-- Paradise Lost, lines 261-263
Dorothy J Heydt
>
>_Paradise Lost_ is an amazing piece of work (sort of has to be to still
>be popular centuries later), and I recommend it. (I know someone who
>only read _Moby Dick_ because Captain Picard had read it, and was quite
>glad to have done so. I never thought to ask if he'd read _Paradise
>Lost_; if not that would seem to settle the "Kirk vs Picard" question.)
It is a great work. On the other hand, if you're female you may
not be able to finish it. I couldn't. Milton wants his females
to be brainless, will-less nitwits who regard their husbands as
gods and never do *anything* except what their husbands tell them
to.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
> _Paradise Lost_ is an amazing piece of work (sort of has to be to still
> be popular centuries later), and I recommend it. (I know someone who
> only read _Moby Dick_ because Captain Picard had read it, and was quite
> glad to have done so. I never thought to ask if he'd read _Paradise
> Lost_; if not that would seem to settle the "Kirk vs Picard" question.)
"Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com>" replied:
> It is a great work. On the other hand, if you're female you may not
> be able to finish it. I couldn't. Milton wants his females to be
> brainless, will-less nitwits who regard their husbands as gods and
> never do *anything* except what their husbands tell them to.
This is an interesting criticism, given Milton's treatise _The Doctrine
and Discipline of Divorce_%, in which he argued that incompability of a
husband and wife should be sufficient to dissolve a marriage (a view
which got him in trouble at the time). It's true that he writes from
the man's view, but he's quoting Genesis (in which God makes Eve as a
companion for Adam), and "man" was often used to refer to both the
human race as a whole, and as the generic singular "person", so I don't
find the langauge unexpected. Importantly, it seems to me, is that
Milton believed that divorce should be available to either the husband
or the wife, and that both should have right of remarriage afterwards.
(It says "to the good of both SEXES" right there on the front page.)
--
% http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/ddd/book_1/index.shtml
One hates to be contrary, but a guy who thinks that "a meet and happy
conversation is the chiefest and the noblest end of mariage", and who
feels that a woman should be able to divorce her husband, doesn't mesh
well with the image of him as someone who thinks women should just be
mindless nitwits. It's tough to have a meet and happy conversation
with a mindless nitwit. (This is presumably why Lord Tennyson argued
that women would be more companionable wives were they educated, a view
that Dorothy Sayers objected to in _Are Women Human?_ (p 20-21). She
was on board with the education, but not with the justification for it.)
I don't disagree that Milton presents gender-specific roles in _Paradise
Lost_, and his characters see the clearly-defined roles as an asset. I
can see where that might be grating; but it was written in the 1600s, so
that was the world he lived in. If you're going to take things too
personally, you'll lose an awful lot of classical literature.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"I complain today because a loaf of bread is $2," my father said to me,
more than once. "But I have the $2. When a loaf of bread was a
nickel, I didn't have the nickel." -- Todd Holzman
Dorothy J Heydt
Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
>I wrote:
>> _Paradise Lost_ is an amazing piece of work (sort of has to be to still
>> be popular centuries later), and I recommend it. (I know someone who
>> only read _Moby Dick_ because Captain Picard had read it, and was quite
>> glad to have done so. I never thought to ask if he'd read _Paradise
>> Lost_; if not that would seem to settle the "Kirk vs Picard" question.)
>
>"Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com>" replied:
>> It is a great work. On the other hand, if you're female you may not
>> be able to finish it. I couldn't. Milton wants his females to be
>> brainless, will-less nitwits who regard their husbands as gods and
>> never do *anything* except what their husbands tell them to.
>
>This is an interesting criticism, given Milton's treatise _The Doctrine
>and Discipline of Divorce_%, in which he argued that incompability of a
>husband and wife should be sufficient to dissolve a marriage (a view
>which got him in trouble at the time).
Well, as I recall, he married (in middle age) a young woman from
a fun-loving Cavalier family who put up with him about two weeks
before running home. So one can understand his attitude about
divorce.
>One hates to be contrary, but a guy who thinks that "a meet and happy
>conversation is the chiefest and the noblest end of mariage", and who
>feels that a woman should be able to divorce her husband, doesn't mesh
>well with the image of him as someone who thinks women should just be
>mindless nitwits.
But ... Eve *is* a mindless nitwit.
It's tough to have a meet and happy conversation
>with a mindless nitwit. (This is presumably why Lord Tennyson argued
>that women would be more companionable wives were they educated, a view
>that Dorothy Sayers objected to in _Are Women Human?_ (p 20-21). She
>was on board with the education, but not with the justification for it.)
>
>I don't disagree that Milton presents gender-specific roles in _Paradise
>Lost_, and his characters see the clearly-defined roles as an asset. I
>can see where that might be grating; but it was written in the 1600s, so
>that was the world he lived in. If you're going to take things too
>personally, you'll lose an awful lot of classical literature.
This is quite true.
But every person has his/her breaking point, and mine was when
Eve, instead of sitting down and *listening to what Raphael had
to say about the dangers threatening her and Adam in Paradise,*,
said to herself "Oh, this is men's business, I'll go cook lunch."
FX: camel's back breaks
Robert Carnegie
> In article <hbj5je$bi...@pcls6.std.com>,
> Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >I wrote:
> >> _Paradise Lost_ is an amazing piece of work (sort of has to be to still
> >> be popular centuries later), and I recommend it. (I know someone who
> >> only read _Moby Dick_ because Captain Picard had read it, and was quite
> >> glad to have done so. I never thought to ask if he'd read _Paradise
> >> Lost_; if not that would seem to settle the "Kirk vs Picard" question.)
>
> >> It is a great work. On the other hand, if you're female you may not
> >> be able to finish it. I couldn't. Milton wants his females to be
> >> brainless, will-less nitwits who regard their husbands as gods and
> >> never do *anything* except what their husbands tell them to.
>
> >This is an interesting criticism, given Milton's treatise _The Doctrine
> >and Discipline of Divorce_%, in which he argued that incompability of a
> >husband and wife should be sufficient to dissolve a marriage (a view
> >which got him in trouble at the time).
>
> Well, as I recall, he married (in middle age) a young woman from
> a fun-loving Cavalier family who put up with him about two weeks
> before running home. So one can understand his attitude about
> divorce.
>
> >One hates to be contrary, but a guy who thinks that "a meet and happy
> >conversation is the chiefest and the noblest end of mariage", and who
> >feels that a woman should be able to divorce her husband, doesn't mesh
> >well with the image of him as someone who thinks women should just be
> >mindless nitwits.
>
> But ... Eve *is* a mindless nitwit.
Some people are. Mrs Bennet in _Pride and Prejudice_ can be hard to
take for several reasons... Mr Woodhouse in _Emma_ matches her. He's
a huge proxy-hypochondriac, but there's a current TV adaptation of /
that/ that I haven't seen, but from an interview or review I got a
dreadful impression they were taking him seriously.
> > It's tough to have a meet and happy conversation
> >with a mindless nitwit. (This is presumably why Lord Tennyson argued
> >that women would be more companionable wives were they educated, a view
> >that Dorothy Sayers objected to in _Are Women Human?_ (p 20-21). She
> >was on board with the education, but not with the justification for it.)
>
> >I don't disagree that Milton presents gender-specific roles in _Paradise
> >Lost_, and his characters see the clearly-defined roles as an asset. I
> >can see where that might be grating; but it was written in the 1600s, so
> >that was the world he lived in. If you're going to take things too
> >personally, you'll lose an awful lot of classical literature.
>
> This is quite true.
I suppose _The Taming of the Shrew_ didn't please.
> But every person has his/her breaking point, and mine was when
> Eve, instead of sitting down and *listening to what Raphael had
> to say about the dangers threatening her and Adam in Paradise,*,
> said to herself "Oh, this is men's business, I'll go cook lunch."
>
> FX: camel's back breaks
He married beneath him, I suppose.
bozo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh you poor creature, with that lame ".sig check check" mumbo-jumbo of
yours, you sound like some poor tic-addled robot from central casting.
Hope you get better. Buh-bye (he-he-he).
-BdN-
bozo
> "Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com>" wrote about "Space Seed":
>
> > You're thinking of the original-Trek episode where Kirk found a space
> > icebox full of the Eugenics Wars people, and sent them to the isolated
> > planet /then/.
>
> > Have you ever read Milton? ?I haven't really. ?Quotations.
>
>
> > Yeah, I do recall Khan's homage to Milton in the last scene, but
> > don't know why either.
>
> It's a reference to _Paradise Lost_, in which Lucifer says that it is
> better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. (Kirk actually explains
> the remark, presumably for the audience.) Khan would rather be king
> of his own wilderness than a cog in the Federation machine.
>
> A friend of mine recommends that if you read _Paradise Lost_, you
> probably want to first read _A Preface to Paradise Lost_, by CS Lewis,
> as the culture has shifted quite a bit over the centuries. Also, a
> footnoted edition of _Paradise Lost_ may be beneficial, but isn't
> necessary because many words and references that are unfamiliar in
> detail are understandable in context.
>
> For example, Milton refers to "adamantine chains", where "adamant" is
> an old word for "diamond". But even if you don't know that, it's clear
> from context that these are special chains, even if you don't get the
> full sense of "extraordinarily unyielding". (I note that modern
> readers might pick up on a resemblance to "adamantium".)
>
> _Paradise Lost_ is an amazing piece of work (sort of has to be to still
> be popular centuries later), and I recommend it. (I know someone who
> only read _Moby Dick_ because Captain Picard had read it, and was quite
> glad to have done so. I never thought to ask if he'd read _Paradise
> Lost_; if not that would seem to settle the "Kirk vs Picard" question.)
>
> "Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
> to reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
> Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven."
> -- Paradise Lost, lines 261-263
Thanks Nancy. Not being being particularly well-lettered, I took your
cues and did a little Wikipedia and found "Paradise Lost" to be one
hell of a story. Theoretically, if it was discovered with the right
provenience today, I could almost see it being pitched as a soap or
docu-drama with log lines and plot points that include a big real
estate development called Pandemonium, a Wisteria Lane couple, Adam
and Eve, and a successful Jon Hamm Like character, Satan, and his
associate Beelzebub & Crew who are wont to undermine the very pillars
and institutions of the community, not to mention the pursuit of
happiness, which at any time could result in the place either catching
fire, freezing over, or gawd forbid neither.
-bozo-
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
Discussing _Paradise Lost_, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> Milton wants his females to be brainless, will-less nitwits who regard
> their husbands as gods and never do *anything* except what their
> husbands tell them to.
I suggested that this was at odds with his other writings, and she
remarked:
> But ... Eve *is* a mindless nitwit.
The source material Milton was working from does seem to have it that
Eve is the one who screwed up the entire human race by doing the one
thing she wasn't supposed to do. Was he supposed to do a complete
rewrite? One could argue that by having Eve foolishly ignore the
advice Raphael is giving, Milton actually softens he sin of her
disobedience which causes the Fall.
For my own part, as a teacher and a parent, I see the "didn't pay
attention while getting directions and got stuck" problem on a regular
basis, so I don't find it particularly out of line to see Eve do the
same thing. Of course she would have done differently if she'd known
how important it was going to be. But isn't that true of every time
something goes wrong that could have been prevented?
It seems to me that you're arguing either (a) there should never be
anyone in a story who makes a disastrously foolish decision, or (b) any
character who makes a disastrously foolish decision should be male.
If you mean (a), then we lose a lot of interesting stories; if you
mean (b), that seems to me a rather sexist position to take.
*
You've got Milton's marriage roughly correct. He was 33, Mary was 16,
and while her family was large and sociable his was small and studious.
She went home to her family, which gave him a different perspective on
marriage and divorce (he seemed to realize they'd been a bad match all
around, the marriage no better for her than for him). They reconciled
after 3 years apart, and she returned to him, and they had three
daughters.
Of course, lots of people change their views of the world once they
have actually been out in it. Many people find that their opinions
about love, marriage, childrearing, and other topics were far too
simple before they had experienced the thing in question.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Democrats do have an historic race going. Hillary Clinton vs. Barack
Obama. Normally, when you see a black man or a woman president an
asteroid is about to hit the Statue of Liberty." -- Jon Stewart
Bill Snyder
Do let the doorknob hit you in the ass, trolltard.
Dorothy J Heydt
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Oct 20, 4:11�am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> In article <hbj5je$bi...@pcls6.std.com>,
>> Dr Nancy's Sweetie �<kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I don't disagree that Milton presents gender-specific roles in _Paradise
>> >Lost_, and his characters see the clearly-defined roles as an asset. �I
>> >can see where that might be grating; but it was written in the 1600s, so
>> >that was the world he lived in. �If you're going to take things too
>> >personally, you'll lose an awful lot of classical literature.
>>
>> This is quite true.
>
>I suppose _The Taming of the Shrew_ didn't please.
What I'd like to do with _TTotS_ sometime, if I were still young
and had time and energy to do it in and had gone into theatre, is
to give it an interpretation informed by _The Knight of the
Burning Pestle_ and _La Vida Es Sueno._
_Shrew_, as you'll recall, has half a frame around the main
story. A nobleman and his friends come upon a commoner and take
him along for an evening of festivity (I think they get him
drunk, but I haven't looked at the text recently) which includes
watching a play. But the frame has no ending. I seriously doubt
Shakespeare forgot to write one, but the last page seems to have
been lost. I would attempt to reconstruct it, showing the
commoner coming to himself and thinking the whole evening had
been a dream.
And the play they would watch would be _Shrew_, but the nobleman
would insist that they turn it into a drama wherein a shrewish
wife is beaten down and tamed by her husband. The players would
protest that it doesn't make sense for such a character to be
tamed, but the nobleman would insist, by means either of threats
or bribes. Just as the citizen does in _Knight_, by making it
clear that he's going to disrupt the performance unless they make
the hero a grocer rather than a knight.
But I'm old and tired and broke and it will never happen.
>
>> But every person has his/her breaking point, and mine was when
>> Eve, instead of sitting down and *listening to what Raphael had
>> to say about the dangers threatening her and Adam in Paradise,*,
>> said to herself "Oh, this is men's business, I'll go cook lunch."
>>
>> FX: camel's back breaks
>
>He married beneath him, I suppose.
Well, it isn't as if he had a lot of choice. Milton did; he made
the wrong choice *for him*. I understand he finally managed to
marry a second time and was much happier.
Dimensional Traveler
--
7 Years - 2265 Experiments - 10 tons of explosives - 705 Myths
Myths - Will - Fall!
Dorothy J Heydt
Default User
I will point out that it's not possible for him to have a proper .sig.
Google Groups removes the trailing space from the separator.
That doesn't affect any other points, of course.
Brian
--
Day 260 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Bill Snyder
<defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:58:04 -0700 (PDT), bozo
>> <Bozo_D...@37.com> wrote:
>
>> > Oh you poor creature, with that lame ".sig check check" mumbo-jumbo
>> > of yours, you sound like some poor tic-addled robot from central
>> > casting. Hope you get better. Buh-bye (he-he-he).
>>
>> Do let the doorknob hit you in the ass, trolltard.
>
>I will point out that it's not possible for him to have a proper .sig.
>Google Groups removes the trailing space from the separator.
>
>That doesn't affect any other points, of course.
Wow, I didn't know anyone was actually required to use Google
Groups. Sounds like cruel and unusual punishment. Is it just for
enemy combatants, or inflicted on domestic criminals, too?
Default User
> On 20 Oct 2009 20:12:29 GMT, "Default User"
> <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I will point out that it's not possible for him to have a proper
> > .sig. Google Groups removes the trailing space from the separator.
> Wow, I didn't know anyone was actually required to use Google
> Groups.
Some people have access only through public computers or are accessing
through firewall/proxy systems that don't allow usenet access.
David DeLaney
>>Maybe it would help if you remembered that Eve was Adam's second wife. :-P
Third, actually.
>Depending on whom you read.
Wot she said.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Dimensional Traveler
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> Maybe it would help if you remembered that Eve was Adam's second wife. :-P
>
> Third, actually.
>
>> Depending on whom you read.
>
> Wot she said.
>
David DeLaney
>David DeLaney wrote:
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> Maybe it would help if you remembered that Eve was Adam's second wife. :-P
>>
>> Third, actually.
>>
>>> Depending on whom you read.
>>
>> Wot she said.
>>
>Third? I know of Lilith, who's the other one?
She didn't actually have a name.
Dave "it's _possible_ Neil Gaiman made her up out of whole cloth ... but the
proportion of actual sources in the rest of Sandman was quite high. Perhaps
when tor.com's re-reading of the series gets to her we'll find out?" DeLaney
Robert Carnegie
> On 20 Oct 2009 20:12:29 GMT, "Default User"
>
>
>
>
>
> <defaultuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Bill Snyder wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:58:04 -0700 (PDT), bozo
> >> <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Oh you poor creature, with that lame ".sig check check" mumbo-jumbo
> >> > of yours, you sound like some poor tic-addled robot from central
> >> > casting. Hope you get better. Buh-bye (he-he-he).
>
> >> Do let the doorknob hit you in the ass, trolltard.
>
> >I will point out that it's not possible for him to have a proper .sig.
> >Google Groups removes the trailing space from the separator.
>
> >That doesn't affect any other points, of course.
>
> Wow, I didn't know anyone was actually required to use Google
> Groups.
What, do you think I do this because I believe I have something to
contribute? :-)