Paul Harvey--"The REST of the story"
DONDI3
Harvey's "The REST of the story" today know who Joshua Tatum was?
Ok. Lesse. He was totally deaf. He lived in the late 1800s in Boston. I got
very smug when Paul started talking about Mr. Tatum. How he was acquitted of
all charges against him in 1884...(did that help?) because there was no way
that he could have requested change when he purchased those 5c cigars all over
Boston. I knew most of the story...how he'd walk into stores in the Boston
area and point to a jar of 5c cigars, get one, and plunk down one of his gold
plated Liberty nickels...and "accept" the $4.95 that the hapless merchant gave
him. How he passed literally thousands of gold plated nickels and faded into
obscurity after his acquittal...but, as usual, Paul told me something I didn't
know...that Joshua Tatum was responsible for the origination of the term
"josh". I never knew that when we speak of "joshing" someone, that the term
had numismatic origins.
Paul did make one noteworthy mistake, though, in mentioning that, to this day,
the 1883 "no cents" nickels are quite valuable to collectors. Had he looked at
little further, he would discover that "hoarding" of the curiosities has
insured a good supply of the "cent-less" nickels to the extent that they're
much cheaper than the one's with "cents" added...even though many more "with
cents" nickels were produced.
Dondi3
AOL-Use to make the less gifted feel superior about SOMEthing...
DONDI enterprises. BUY, SELL, TRADE. RARE COINS & PRECIOUS METALS
Member COINNET, CSNS, ANA, INA, MOON, ILNA.
Mark Greene
> Ok. Anybody who DIDN'T hear Paul
>Harvey's "The REST of the story" today know who Joshua Tatum was?
>
>Ok. Lesse. He was totally deaf.
He was also mute. that point is important:
>How he was acquitted of
>all charges against him in 1884...(did that help?) because there was no way
>that he could have requested change
>How he passed literally thousands of gold plated nickels and faded into
How many he passed is unknown. It may have only been dozens, hundreds at the
most. Even in 1883 word would have spread around the merchant and vendor
community to be on the look-out for him after awhile.
>Paul told me something I didn't
>know...that Joshua Tatum was responsible for the origination of the term
>"josh".
It's stuff like this that is rapidly making lose respect for Mr Harvey. The
word first appeared in print in 1848--so you can bet it was in use as slang
sevearl years or more before that. The on-line Merriam-Webster gives the
etymology as 1852. There was a web site devoted to the story that had the 1848
reference (some newpaper), I'll see if I can google it up.
--
mark
Quantum Express: When you absolutely, positively, don't know
where it's going or when it needs to be there. - RazorJAK in a.g.
Paul Robertz
"joshing".
Follow this link, to the Numismatic Bibliomania society, and scroll
down almost to the bottom, and you'll see an argument that the term
more likely originated before 1880 from the sayings of Josh Billings,
a pen-name for the author Henry Wheeler Shaw.
http://www.coinbooks.org/club_nbs_esylum_v03n19.html
Has anyone found a picture of Josh Tatum? The story of Josh Tatum
buying a 5 cent cigars with a "racketeer nickel" and getting $4.95
change without asking for it is one of my all time favorite numismatic
legends. I first heard this legend when I started collecting Liberty
Nickels 30 years ago.
AnswerMan2
==============
Yep. This is the same Paul Harvey who told everyone that 1943 cents without
mintmarks were worth $250,000, ignoring the fact that over 684 million were
struck at Philadelphia without mintmarks. That misstatement cost the hobby a
bunch, both time and money.
Alan Herbert
Jeff Y.
son, Paul Harvey, Jr. writes all of them and has since I beleive 1975
or so. I would say any corrections or questions regarding a stroy,
this one in particular, should be addressed to Paul Harvery, Jr.
Only now you know, the rest of the story.
Jeff Y.
Bob Flaminio
news:20020110001352...@mb-fe.aol.com...
> It's stuff like this that is rapidly making lose respect for Mr
Harvey.
Paul Harvey is second only to Ann Landers for spreading urban legends.
On the rare instances that I listen to him, I don't believe a word he
says. What you *will* believe are the great deals that you can get
down at Peterson Dodge. Ask for Larry. I think snopes.com has
something to say about Mr. Harvey, but I'm too lazy to go look it up
right now.
-Bob
doug strain
vsw...@hotmail.com (Jeff Y.) writes:
>
>Interesting story. However, Paul Harvey reads the "stories" but his
>son, Paul Harvey, Jr. writes all of them and has since I beleive 1975
>or so. I would say any corrections or questions regarding a stroy,
>this one in particular, should be addressed to Paul Harvery, Jr.
>
>Only now you know, the rest of the story.
>
>
>Jeff Y.
>
credence to paul harvey....i have to hold him to everything he states
because to do otherwise, son or no son, would not be responsible
journalism.
sorry paul. i've cut you off for good. happy trails.
regards
doug
Coin Saver
>>"Mark Greene" wrote
>> It's stuff like this that is rapidly making lose respect for Mr Harvey.>>
>Paul Harvey is second only to Ann Landers for spreading urban legends. On the
rare instances that I listen to him, I don't believe a word he says >
For the past several years, Paul Harvey's "The Rest of the Story" has been
researched and written by his first son, according to Paul, himself, in one of
his speeches about his throat surgery.
Last week there was one which made no sense at all. I think they forgot to
include the "bang" connection at the end ... you know ... the some thing like
... "and this young lady went on to be the wife of a President ..." or
something like that.
Coin Saver
LRC-Tom
1946, that the Hawaiian Islands were hit by a tidal wave that
"engulfed the islands". My father was serving in the Army there at
the time. My grandmother, hearing this report, understandibly went
into a total panic. There was indeed a tidal wave, but Harvey
obviously greatly exaggerated its size.
Fred A. Murphy
On 10-Jan-2002, OP...@vm.cc.latech.edu (doug strain) wrote:
> sad that age gets the better of all of us, but i just cannot lend much
> credence to paul harvey....i have to hold him to everything he states
> because to do otherwise, son or no son, would not be responsible
> journalism.
Harvey is a commentator and entertainer, which is not always the same as
journalist.
--
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.
DONDI3
<bigg...@NOSPAMameritech.net> writes:
>
>On 10-Jan-2002, OP...@vm.cc.latech.edu (doug strain) wrote:
>
>> sad that age gets the better of all of us, but i just cannot lend much
>> credence to paul harvey....i have to hold him to everything he states
>> because to do otherwise, son or no son, would not be responsible
>> journalism.
>
>Harvey is a commentator and entertainer, which is not always the same as
>journalist.
As a once-aspiring journalist, I note that the line between "entertainer" and
"journalist" has blurred considerably in the last 30 years. At one time
(1960s) all news "commentators" were journalists and avoided editorializing
like plagarism. While some leeway was granted to sports writers, news writers
were supposed to use neutral language and avoid opinions at all costs.
Television news/entertainment which is exemplified by Fox News Channel and
carried on to some degree by almost all news "commentators" has changed much of
what used to be journalism.
I was surprised at the level of invective directed to Mr. Harvey in this
thread. He as amused and entertained me for many years. I suppose I never
thought of him as totally factual and scientific in his essays. I suspect
those who listen to him as a straight newsman probably rely on the Farmer's
Almanac for weather forecasts, too.
Fred A. Murphy
On 11-Jan-2002, don...@aol.com (DONDI3) wrote:
> I was surprised at the level of invective directed to Mr. Harvey in this
> thread. He as amused and entertained me for many years. I suppose I
> never
> thought of him as totally factual and scientific in his essays. I suspect
> those who listen to him as a straight newsman probably rely on the
> Farmer's
> Almanac for weather forecasts, too.
And ask Andy Rooney's opinion on whether we should keep the cent.
Mark Greene
>I was surprised at the level of invective directed to Mr. Harvey in this
>thread. He as amused and entertained me for many years. I suppose I never
>thought of him as totally factual and scientific in his essays. I suspect
>those who listen to him as a straight newsman probably rely on the Farmer's
>Almanac for weather forecasts, too.
>
I have never owned a copy of said Almanac, much less used it for anything.
Given that it took me less than 5 minutes to verify the etymology of the word
"josh", I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect an entertainer
playing at newsman to get the pertinate facts straight.
If you disagree, I've got this really, really, really rare 1943 penny you might
be interested in.
LRC-Tom
> thread. He as amused and entertained me for many years.
If you were the parent of a 19-year old son, 6000 miles away from home
on a remote island, I doubt you'd find the report, on national news,
of a tidal wave that "engulfed the island", very "amusing" or
"entertaining."
DONDI3
littlero...@aol.com (LRC-Tom) writes:
...true...Do you have a point to make here?
dondi3
DONDI3
(Mark Greene) writes:
>
>I have never owned a copy of said Almanac, much less used it for anything.
>Given that it took me less than 5 minutes to verify the etymology of the word
>"josh", I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect an entertainer
>playing at newsman to get the pertinate facts straight.
>
>If you disagree, I've got this really, really, really rare 1943 penny you
>might
>be interested in.
Mark, its been pointed out that Mr. Harvey does not claim to be a
newsman...he's a commentator, not a newsman...just as the Almanac "plays" at
being a scientific journal. I'm familiar with his alleged statement about the
'43 cent, although I've never seen a copy of his actual script for that day.
While many of George Carlin's political views annoy me, especially when they
creep into his routines, I'm still amused and entertained. I'm just surprised
at the negative feelings toward Mr. Harvey, that's all. If you're studying
etymology (an inexact and highly contested science, at best) by listening to
the radio, you're going about it the wrong way.
Mr. Harvey's scripts whether prepared by Jr or Sr are entertaining. They're
well presented by a man with a gift for "turning a word". I admire and enjoy
that.
David Ryan
>
> In article <b45fa5fb.02011...@posting.google.com>,
> littlero...@aol.com (LRC-Tom) writes:
>
> >
> >> I was surprised at the level of invective directed to Mr. Harvey in this
> >> thread. He as amused and entertained me for many years.
> >
> >If you were the parent of a 19-year old son, 6000 miles away from home
> >on a remote island, I doubt you'd find the report, on national news,
> >of a tidal wave that "engulfed the island", very "amusing" or
> >"entertaining."
>
> ...true...Do you have a point to make here?
I think it's just the way "engulf" was taken. I think PH meant it
two-dimensionally while people imagined it three-dimensional.
Mark Greene
>I think it's just the way "engulf" was taken. I think PH meant it
>two-dimensionally while people imagined it three-dimensional.
Given that this was in reference to a tidal wave, a very three-dimensional
object, how does that supposition represent either responsible journalism or
entertainment?
David Ryan
>
> >From: David Ryan bikerp...@hotmail.com
>
> >I think it's just the way "engulf" was taken. I think PH meant it
> >two-dimensionally while people imagined it three-dimensional.
>
> Given that this was in reference to a tidal wave, a very three-dimensional
> object, how does that supposition represent either responsible journalism or
> entertainment?
Hawaii is a lot more three-dimensional than any wave since the last
asteroid hit.
Mark Greene
>Mark, its been pointed out that Mr. Harvey does not claim to be a
>newsman...he's a commentator, not a newsman.
Thomas Nast, Mark Twain, and Will Rogers were "commentators. There was no
mistake that what they were providing was humor and social commentary.
Harvey is not a commentator (regardless of what he calls himself), as he does
not comment. He reads stories of past and current events, stories that are by
both implication and often direct mention presented as being true. That being
the case, they ought to be as factual as practically possible. spending 5 or 10
minutes with appropriate references guides wouldn't kill him (or his son).
>If you're studying
>etymology (an inexact and highly contested science, at best) by listening to
>the radio, you're going about it the wrong way.
No. Nor do I learn my math from the Price is Right, my physicis from Star Trek,
nor my geography from Survivor. (actually, I've never, ever seen Survivor--any
of them). But, for someone who is reading what is presented as a true story,
why should I not expect for it to be true?
>Mr. Harvey's scripts whether prepared by Jr or Sr are entertaining. They're
>well presented by a man with a gift for "turning a word". I admire and enjoy
>that.
Yes, I used to as well, until started feeling a bit less and thinking a bit
more.
LRC-Tom
expects a radio news report to be factual, and that exaggeration or
outright fabrication of such "facts" can be very hurtful. Paul Harvey
has been guilty of this for many decades.
Padraic Brown
> While many of George Carlin's political views annoy me, especially when they
> creep into his routines, I'm still amused and entertained. I'm just surprised
> at the negative feelings toward Mr. Harvey, that's all.
The problem is this: Carlin _is_ a comedian. He's supposed to make
you laugh. Harvey is a "commentator" who presents his comments as
if true. That so many people take him at his word, as if they were
listening to a preacher, indicates that popular opinion makes him
a reporter more than a commentator. [While it may not be his
intention to deceive his listeners, he has not ever made plain
what he says is only his opinion.]
> If you're studying
> etymology (an inexact and highly contested science, at best) by listening to
> the radio, you're going about it the wrong way.
Possibly. Some areas brook no contest (the etym. of "numismatics"
is unarguable). Others are highly debatable.
> Mr. Harvey's scripts whether prepared by Jr or Sr are entertaining. They're
> well presented by a man with a gift for "turning a word". I admire and enjoy
> that.
They are certainly entertaining if you _understand_ him to be no
more than an ideosyncratic commentator. The reality is quite
different. For those of us who look on the havoc he's wrought on
history (e.g., the 1943 penny thing) he's a nuissance. Entertaining,
but still a nuissance!
> dondi3
Padraic.
--
Gwerez dah, chee gwaz vaz, ha leal.
Coin Saver
>My point is that one expects a radio news report to be factual, and that
exaggeration or outright fabrication of such "facts" can be very hurtful. Paul
Harvey has been guilty of this for many decades.>
... and now, you know the REST of the story ...
8-)
Coin Saver
DONDI3
Sorry. I do not listen to Mr Harvey to hear the news. I listen to be
entertained by his commentary on the news.
If you don't understand the difference between Paul Harvey and CNN (or at least
what CNN is SUPPOSED to be) then I recommend a good journalism textbook.
If you take every word in your newspaper as factual and true, I sympathize with
you. You must lead a very nervous and confusing life.
I can only recommend to those of you who feel that Mr. Harvey is a news
reporter, to try to adjust your thinking. He is to news what Harry Caray was to
Cub's baseball.
Dondi3
DONDI3
<agri...@rac1.wam.umd.edu> writes:
>
>The problem is this: Carlin _is_ a comedian. He's supposed to make
>you laugh. Harvey is a "commentator" who presents his comments as
>if true. That so many people take him at his word, as if they were
>listening to a preacher, indicates that popular opinion makes him
>a reporter more than a commentator.
George Carlin is a comedian for only a few hours a week. Most of the time, he
is not a comedian, but still freely presents his views on the environment,
global warming and morality. Even when is IS a commedian, he does not tell
folks that he's kidding or exaggerating about what his view of those subjects
is. The point is that NEITHER Carlin or Harvey are "news" reporters. They are
both entertainers.
I was amused at Stephen Hawkings' comments on his recent encounter with a wall.
That doesn't make him a comedian...nor do I see his encounter as a contest
between him and the wall. In short, he was not factual...he WAS entertaining.
He is an extraordinary physicist...but no matter what he says, the wall did not
attack him. I would guess that many people were amused by his comments, but
all of the chuckling could not make him a comedian. Simply because many people
(at least on RCC, apparently) THINK Mr. Harvey is a news reporter, does not
MAKE him a news reporter.
And while I'm at it, I suspect that the negative vibes uncovered by this thread
may be in direct (over?) reaction to the public's interpretation of his '43
cent story. I still haven't seen a copy of what he said, so I can't comment
on whether it was factual or not.
dondi3
Jorg and Cheri Lueke
"DONDI3" <don...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020112173355...@mb-ba.aol.com...
> In article <b45fa5fb.02011...@posting.google.com>,
> littlero...@aol.com (LRC-Tom) writes:
>
> >
> >> ...true...Do you have a point to make here?
> >
> >Maybe you missed my first post in this thread. My point is that one
> >expects a radio news report to be factual, and that exaggeration or
> >outright fabrication of such "facts" can be very hurtful. Paul Harvey
> >has been guilty of this for many decades.
> >
>
> Sorry. I do not listen to Mr Harvey to hear the news. I listen to be
> entertained by his commentary on the news.
>
> If you don't understand the difference between Paul Harvey and CNN (or at
least
> what CNN is SUPPOSED to be) then I recommend a good journalism textbook.
>
> If you take every word in your newspaper as factual and true, I sympathize
with
> you. You must lead a very nervous and confusing life.
>
> I can only recommend to those of you who feel that Mr. Harvey is a news
> reporter, to try to adjust your thinking. He is to news what Harry Caray was
to
> Cub's baseball.
Paul Harvey is half-crazed and drunken?
:-)
Stujoe
spoke thusly...
> In article <20020111203257...@mb-fs.aol.com>, prg...@aol.combustion
> (Mark Greene) writes:
>
> >
> >I have never owned a copy of said Almanac, much less used it for anything.
> >Given that it took me less than 5 minutes to verify the etymology of the word
> >"josh", I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect an entertainer
> >playing at newsman to get the pertinate facts straight.
> >
> >If you disagree, I've got this really, really, really rare 1943 penny you
> >might
> >be interested in.
>
> Mark, its been pointed out that Mr. Harvey does not claim to be a
> newsman...he's a commentator, not a newsman...
Personally, I think Paul Harvey is a joke and not a newsman but he
certainly seems to present himself (or allows himself to be presented
or maybe even would be surprised to find out he is being presented)
as a newsman on his website.
--
Stu Miller
The Stujoe Collection, established: 1999
RCC FAQ: http://www.telesphere.com/ts/coins/faq2.html
Dale H
"Stujoe" <stu...@NONADASPAMprodigy.net> wrote in message news:MPG.16aa8171c...@news.prodigy.net...
I think Paul Harvey is occasionally good entertainment.
I don't think he pretends to be anything else.
What's the problem with that?
I never take him totally seriously.
Dale
Stujoe
thusly...
> I think Paul Harvey is occasionally good entertainment.
>
> I don't think he pretends to be anything else.
The last time I listened to his show was about a year ago so I am
certainly not an expert on if he does or doesn't pretend to be
anything. I just happened to look up his website because of all of
the discussion.
> What's the problem with that?
I have no real problem with him or his show. I just don't enjoy
either.
> I never take him totally seriously.
Me either.
Padraic Brown
> George Carlin is a comedian for only a few hours a week.
Nevertheless.
> Most of the time, he
> is not a comedian,
OK. A garbageman is only a garbageman a few hours a week. Your
dentist is only a dentist a few hours a week.
> And while I'm at it, I suspect that the negative vibes uncovered by this
> thread may be in direct (over?) reaction to the public's interpretation
> of his '43 cent story. I still haven't seen a copy of what he said,
> so I can't comment on whether it was factual or not.
Undoubtedly, the local (i.e., RCC) reaction is largely directed
by this episode and other numismatic related episodes. I for one
find his stories at times amusing; and really don't care one way
or the other for his show. On the other hand, I don't take him
seriously either (too many obvious errors presented as fact).
Padraic Brown
> I think Paul Harvey is occasionally good entertainment.
> I don't think he pretends to be anything else.
> What's the problem with that?
On the surface, not a thing. Dig a little deeper, and we see
that he presents skewed facts, a few real facts and at times
bonehead nonfacts as actual facts. This situation is promoted
by the unhappy realities that he is willing to do this (a sad
trait in someone that otherwise seems a good and decent man)
and that so many people take him at his word.
> I never take him totally seriously.
Good for you!
> Dale
DONDI3
<jlu...@mn.nomediaone.spamnet> writes:
>
>Paul Harvey is half-crazed and drunken?
Heh...no, but he IS loved and enjoyed by millions. I knew guys who were not
happy with Harry, either. Come to think of it, I usta think he wuz watchin' a
different game that he was describing sometimes...but I still miss him.
HO-lee Cow...
dondi3
Dale H
"Padraic Brown" <agri...@rac2.wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:a1ql2d$m46$2...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
Well I thought his goal was to be funny or ironic.
I never thought anyone would take him as factual.
Oh well that reminds me of a saying:
I saw it on a cartoon but I think I can do it.
Dale
Dracham2
>word first appeared in print in 1848--so you can bet it was in use as slang
>sevearl years or more before that. The on-line Merriam-Webster gives the
>etymology as 1852. There was a web site devoted to the story that had the
>1848
>reference (some newpaper), I'll see if I can google it up.
>
>
>--
>mark
>
>Quantum Express: When you absolutely, positively, don't know
>where it's going or when it needs to be there. - RazorJAK in a.g.
>
You know, while everyone is slamming Paul Harvey, the History Channel made this
exact same claim during their documentary on the history of the mint. Were any
complaints posted here when that aired?
Mark Greene
>You know, while everyone is slamming Paul Harvey, the History Channel made
>this
>exact same claim during their documentary on the history of the mint. Were
>any
>complaints posted here when that aired?
I did not see that, and if I did would have said something.
Got a dictionary at home? Look-up the word "josh", and what does it say?
Bob Flaminio
news:20020113032927...@mb-mn.aol.com...
> You know, while everyone is slamming Paul Harvey, the History
Channel made this
> exact same claim during their documentary on the history of the
mint. Were any
> complaints posted here when that aired?
Yes. Of course, we tend to complain about everything around here :-).
-Bob
Padraic Brown
>> > I never take him totally seriously.
>>
>> Good for you!
> Well I thought his goal was to be funny or ironic.
Possibly.
> I never thought anyone would take him as factual.
Clearly, many do.
LRC-Tom
present "the news." I don't dispute that at all. But that was not always
the case. His show was not always called "The Rest of The Story." I seem to
recall that in the '60s and '70's, it was called "Paul Harvey News." And I
expect this was the case in the '40s, when his exaggerated reports so greatly
upset my father's mother. When you present something even vaguely represented
as "the news", you have a certain degree of responsibility, a fact that has
never concerned our dear Mr. Harvey.
LRC-Tom
last few years.
Bill Krummel
LRC-Tom <littlero...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020113225315...@mb-cg.aol.com...
> Yes, I'm a Cubs fan too, and I miss Harry, even though he wasn't all there
the
> last few years.
I was a HC fan for many years when Harry C. broadcast the St. Louis
Cardinal games. I listened to every game I could and thought Carey was the
best. Up until 1969 that is. When the Cardinals were proceeding to dump
him, I refused to sign petitions asking that he be kept because, imo, he
went south in 1969. The Cardinals had won the NL pennant in 67 and 68,
rather handily in 68, and I think Harry thought we had a dynasty going on.
The Cardinals floundered all year in 69, but Harry was optimistic that they
would catch fire through the first 2/3rds of the season. Then, when he gave
up on them, he started bad mouthing his own team from the booth, and many
times was seemingly drunk. I was glad to see him dumped. Perhaps he
learned a lesson and did a much better job in Chicago, similar to how he
used to broadcast. It does seem he was popular with the Cub fans. Bill
DONDI3
writes:
IIRC, there was a nasty story about Mr. Carey and Mrs. Busch that was gaining
reknown and Harry probably knew he was on the way out by late '69. I'm not
sure that Harry's life was always exemplary or that, late in his career, he was
much of a broadcaster, but his lovable personality had by then made him an icon
for Cub's fans and we tolerated almost anything he did. Harry loved everybody,
drunk or sober, and they loved him back. Three years later and they still
recruit the worst singers they can find to try to imitate Harry during the
'stretch'. He was to the booth, what Sosa is on the field. Not always
articulate, but always lovable.
Dondi3
Dondi3
Paul Robertz
> Yes, I'm a Cubs fan too, and I miss Harry, even though he wasn't all there the
> last few years.
Good for you! I live in Chicago (South Side) and miss Harry Caray
too, even though I'm not particularly a Cubs fan and haven't been "all
there" myself the last couple of years either. But then again,
neither has Paul Harvey, or my Whitman folder of AG Liberty nickels.
Coin Saver
>it's very clear right now that Paul Harvey does not
>present "the news." I don't dispute that at all. But that was not always
>the case. His show was not always called "The Rest of The Story."
Ah, but he does.
In Sacramento, he's on 4 times a day, on AM 1520; only one of these is the
"Rest of the Story" episode. At (?) 5:30 am and noon (i think) it's "Paul
Harvey News And Comment", which is usually a bit of oddball news mixed in with
top headliners.
Coin Saver
Fred A. Murphy
On 12-Jan-2002, don...@aol.com (DONDI3) wrote:
> I can only recommend to those of you who feel that Mr. Harvey is a news
> reporter, to try to adjust your thinking. He is to news what Harry Caray
> was to Cub's baseball.
You mean Paul has a bar? And no one told me?
I went to Harry Caray's one time with a couple friends. Ordered a draft and
the 25¢ chicken dinner special. Waitress smiled and brought the draft.
When it went dry, she took a second order for a draft and a 25¢ chicken
dinner special, but I still only got the beer. The third time I ordered a
draft and TWO 25¢ chicken dinner specials, because I was starting to get a
little hungry.
She explained they didn't have a 25¢ chicken dinner special, but she'd be
happy to bring me another beer. I pointed to the big sign taped to the bar
mirror behind her.
I got my two hardboiled eggs free. :^)
--
OK, so it's a flipping Mario ripoff.
It's free, it's a quick DL, and it'll run on a slow machine.
What more do you want from a game called Happy the Coin Collecting Penguin?
http://www.astralent.com/HappyPenguin.html
Fred A. Murphy
On 12-Jan-2002, don...@aol.com (DONDI3) wrote:
> Heh...no, but he IS loved and enjoyed by millions. I knew guys who were
> not happy with Harry, either. Come to think of it, I usta think he wuz
> watchin' a different game that he was describing sometimes...but I still
> miss him.
>
> HO-lee Cow...
Would you believe the bar's email address is holycow#harrycarays.com?