Letter to Sis - Recap of Threads
Tony Cooper
Now just calm down! It's not Rey's fault. He was manipulated and just
pulled along by the nose. I was the one that scattered the corn in the
field, so I'm the one that should be blamed. You gotta admit it was
worth it. The sight of Rey flopping down in the field like a turkey
trying to land on a pointed stick was a sight to behold.
This will have to be a short letter since not much is going on in aue to
report. There's the usual number of posts, but I'm skipping quite a few
of them. There's some intense discussion going on about the value of
pi, but it's limited to the math geeks that actually know what pi means.
There are quite a few of us that opened one or two posts, found that it
was not a typographical error and a redux of the rhubarb thread, and
went on to other things. The math geeks are easy to get going. All you
have to do is make some statement like "Zero is a positive number" or
"Zero is a negative number" or "Zero is a non-number" (it doesn't make
any difference which; they're all subject to debate) and they're off
and running.
The current longest running topic is "Cracker". Like "pi", it appeared
edible at first but disappointed many when it turned out to be something
completely different. To recap it, someone posted a totally fabricated
account of an event, and we discussed what should have happened if what
didn't happen actually happened. The group, of course, was divided on
the issue and settled into the usual opposing camps. The Google Club
dropped out early since it's difficult - even for them - to Google
non-events and compute statistics and ratios of non-use compared to
never-happeneds.
The origin of the "Cracker" thread was a fabricated story, and a
fabricated letter also made a brief splash. That thread turned out to
be a bust since no one really accused the alleged poster of posting it,
but he went to great lengths - and great frequency - to deny what was
not charged. He was rather enthusiastic in his denials, but seemed to
sense that no one actually cared and came across as a bit deflated. I
think he was encouraging people to accuse him and blew up the issue like
a balloon. The thread died of suicide proving that a prick should not
play with a balloon.
There are a couple of threads running on homosexuality. Oddly enough,
except for some early entries of far-too-graphic descriptions of things
I didn't realize were done, there is very little discussion of
homosexuality in the many posts. It just shows that - in aue - sex is
of far less interest than food.
The only other thread of any consequence is one of those "You're a
liar"/"No, you're a liar" exchanges that we see here so often. This
particular thread got muddy very early since none of the participants
seemed actually able to remember what the lie was, or what wasn't a lie,
so it deteriorated into a side-stepping show that would do the Dancing
Horses of Lipica proud.
I think there may have been a post or two on English Usage, but I can't
remember what they were about. That is, unless you consider "Dogpatch"
and "fan belt squeal" to be usage questions.
That's about it, Sis. Like I said, don't worry about Rey. He's busy
extracting petard parts from his body and won't bother you again for a
while.
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
Mark Wallace
A true and accurate account of events.
[Rubber stamp here]
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Jerry
"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aerptp$96udb$1...@ID-113505.news.dfncis.de...
> This will have to be a short letter since not much is going on in aue to
> report. There's the usual number of posts, but I'm skipping quite a few
> of them. There's some intense discussion going on about the value of
> pi, but it's limited to the math geeks that actually know what pi means.
> There are quite a few of us that opened one or two posts, found that it
> was not a typographical error and a redux of the rhubarb thread, and
> went on to other things. The math geeks are easy to get going. All you
> have to do is make some statement like "Zero is a positive number" or
> "Zero is a negative number" or "Zero is a non-number" (it doesn't make
> any difference which; they're all subject to debate) and they're off
> and running.
What was disappointing was the pi thread didn't stray firmly back onto
English, which it could've no problem.
Georg Cantor, who was mentioned more than once, was not only a
mathematician, but a fanatic believer that Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's
plays. For example in his illness of 1848 he had requested that he be
allowed to lecture on philosophy instead of mathematics and he had begun his
intense study of Elizabethan literature in attempting to prove his
Bacon-Shakespeare theory. He began to publish pamphlets on the literary
question in 1896 and 1897.
On a related field, American cryptography in the 20th century was helped
because one of the main developers of it, William Friedman, was gainfully
employed mostly to prove mathematically and cryptanalytically that Bacon and
Shakespeare were the same person.
Can anyone say now if they were right? Did Frances Bacon write
Shakespeare's plays?
Jerry
Padraig Breathnach
>That's about it, Sis. Like I said, don't worry about Rey. He's busy
>extracting petard parts from his body and won't bother you again for a
>while.
Tony, you never asked Sis if Rey paid her the $2.50 he owes her.
PB
Bob Cunningham
[ . . . ]
> Can anyone say now if they were right? Did Frances Bacon write
> Shakespeare's plays?
I believe scholarly opinion is leaning toward the belief that it wasn't
Shakespeare who wrote Shakespeare's plays, but some other guy named
Shakespeare.
Bob Cunningham
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> said:
[ . . . ]
> All you
> have to do is make some statement like "Zero is a positive number" or
> "Zero is a negative number" or "Zero is a non-number" (it doesn't make
> any difference which; they're all subject to debate) and they're off
> and running.
I doubt you'd get even mathematical dilettantes going with those
statements. You'd have better luck with "Zero is a finite number" or
"Zero is not infinitesimally small".
Obaue: How would you reword the first sentence in the preceding paragraph
to avoid the false scent "get even"?
rzed
"Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gi73hu8rdaa0iufk7...@4ax.com...
"I doubt you'd get even odd mathematical dilettantes going with those
statements."
Raymond S. Wise
So *that's* the guy. The one *The Century Dictionary* calls "Shakspere,"
(Although everyone else spells it "Shakespeare.")
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Charles Riggs
>What was disappointing was the pi thread didn't stray firmly back onto
>English, which it could've no problem.
Now you've got it, Eliza: pi. I see my lectures to your wayward self
are not totally in vain.
Charles Riggs
my-wings
Change the verb?
I doubt you'd [rouse/incite/inflame] even mathematical dilettantes with
those statements.
Thanks to your post, I was forced to google (speaking of new verbs) up
"false scent." It was either that, or have the term hound me all day.
Alice
I love the internet.
Bob Cunningham
> > [ . . . ]
Next time instead of saying "false scent" maybe I'll say "counterfeit
penny" just to make the puzzle more challenging.
In case you want to read more about "false scent", there's a main entry,
with about one page of discussion, under those words in Gowers's second
edition of _Fowler's Modern English Usage_.
Tom Traubert
"Jerry" <nob...@home.here> wrote:
> "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:aerptp$96udb$1...@ID-113505.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > This will have to be a short letter since not much is going on in aue to
> > report. There's the usual number of posts, but I'm skipping quite a few
> > of them. There's some intense discussion going on about the value of
> > pi, but it's limited to the math geeks that actually know what pi means.
> > There are quite a few of us that opened one or two posts, found that it
> > was not a typographical error and a redux of the rhubarb thread, and
> > went on to other things. The math geeks are easy to get going. All you
> > have to do is make some statement like "Zero is a positive number" or
> > "Zero is a negative number" or "Zero is a non-number" (it doesn't make
> > any difference which; they're all subject to debate) and they're off
> > and running.
>
> What was disappointing was the pi thread didn't stray firmly back onto
> English, which it could've no problem.
>
> Georg Cantor, who was mentioned more than once, was not only a
> mathematician, but a fanatic believer that Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's
> plays. For example in his illness of 1848 he had requested that he be
> allowed to lecture on philosophy instead of mathematics and he had begun his
> intense study of Elizabethan literature in attempting to prove his
> Bacon-Shakespeare theory. He began to publish pamphlets on the literary
> question in 1896 and 1897.
You really ought to attribute when you quote verbatim; cf.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/Mathematicians/Cantor.html
The erroneous date 1848 --- Cantor was born in 1845 --- is a partial
transposition of the correct date 1884, and this same typo appears in
the article of O'Connor and Robertson.
--
Tom
R H Draney
> The
> group, of course, was divided on the issue and settled into the
> usual opposing camps. The Google Club dropped out early since
> it's difficult - even for them - to Google non-events and compute
> statistics and ratios of non-use compared to never-happeneds.
Not an entirely accurate accounting, I think...the Google Club found
itself distracted by the realization that one could get paid for
answering questions, and all interest in other topics vanished....r
Michael J Hardy
> The one *The Century Dictionary* calls "Shakspere,"
> (Although everyone else spells it "Shakespeare.")
I've noticed that in the Century Dictionary too. And the
Century Dictionary calls Athena "Athene". But I think those
were formerly alternative standard spellings. -- Mike Hardy
Bob Cunningham
[about the spelling of "Shakespeare"]
> I've noticed that in the Century Dictionary too. And the
> Century Dictionary calls Athena "Athene". But I think those
> were formerly alternative standard spellings. -- Mike Hardy
I think I've read that Shakespeare spelled his name several different
ways, and one way that he never spelled it was "Shakespeare".
There are people who like to believe that there was a great poet and
playwright named Shakespeare, and a lowly actor from Stratford named
Shakspere: two different people.
You can read probably more than you want to know about the spelling of
Shakespeare's name and see a long list of different spellings at
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html
. Scanning it hastily and with only slight interest, I saw no mention
there of his never spelling his name "Shakespeare", but I could easily
have missed it.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Tony Cooper wrote:
> > Dear Sis:
> >
> > Now just calm down! It's not Rey's fault. He was
> > manipulated and just pulled along by the nose.
You liar.
> > That thread turned out to be a bust since no one
> > really accused the alleged poster of posting it,
You liar.
> > I think he was encouraging people to accuse
> > him and blew up the issue like a balloon.
You liar.
> > The only other thread of any consequence is one of those "You're
> > a liar"/"No, you're a liar" exchanges that we see here so often.
> > This particular thread got muddy very early since none of the
> > participants seemed actually able to remember what the lie was,
You liar.
Funny-in-the-head Cooper doesn't know the difference between "satire"
and "outright lie." Just like Wallace.
> A true and accurate account of events.
>
> [Rubber stamp here]
> Mark Wallace
Now *that's* funny. One liar endorsing another liar.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Gerald Smyth
[snip]
> [...] The math geeks are easy to get going. All you
> have to do is make some statement like "Zero is a positive number" or
> "Zero is a negative number" or "Zero is a non-number" (it doesn't make
> any difference which; they're all subject to debate) and they're off
> and running.
Zero can be conceived as an infinitesimally small number, either
positive or negative. Since it can be derived as the limit of an
infinite sequence of fractions, there's no question of its being a
nonnumber.
[snip]
Gerald Smyth
my-wings
>
> Next time instead of saying "false scent" maybe I'll say "counterfeit
> penny" just to make the puzzle more challenging.
>
And...would I be able to use that fake coinage to buy a clue? Surely I would
come a copper <cough> trying to figure that out!
> In case you want to read more about "false scent", there's a main entry,
> with about one page of discussion, under those words in Gowers's second
> edition of _Fowler's Modern English Usage_.
As to reading more, I have _The NEW Fowler's Modern English Usage, Third
Edition, edited by R.W. Burchfield. The title page indicates that the first
edition was edited by H.W. Fowler. There is no mention of the editor of the
second edition. The reverse of the title page indicates: First edition 1926;
Second edition 1965; Third edition 1996. This third edition of mine contains
nothing between "false quantity" and "falsetto." What other important items
might I be missing?
Alice
Tony Cooper
"my-wings" <night_...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:FDuQ8.46670$LC3.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:qus3hukmfs64k7kes...@4ax.com...
>
> >
> > Next time instead of saying "false scent" maybe I'll say
"counterfeit
> > penny" just to make the puzzle more challenging.
> >
>
> And...would I be able to use that fake coinage to buy a clue? Surely I
would
> come a copper <cough> trying to figure that out!
I thought the phrase was "come a cropper", unless you were going for
wordplay.
my-wings
>
> "my-wings" <night_...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:FDuQ8.46670$LC3.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:qus3hukmfs64k7kes...@4ax.com...
> >
> > >
> > > Next time instead of saying "false scent" maybe I'll say
> "counterfeit
> > > penny" just to make the puzzle more challenging.
> > >
> >
> > And...would I be able to use that fake coinage to buy a clue? Surely I
> would
> > come a copper <cough> trying to figure that out!
>
> I thought the phrase was "come a cropper", unless you were going for
> wordplay.
>
>
You are right on both counts.
Alice
Nehmo Sergheyev
> Zero can be conceived as an infinitesimally small number,
Nehmo
In non-mathematical language "infinitesimally small" is not the same as
nothing. "Infinitesimally small" is always something.
Gerald
> either positive or negative. Since it can be derived
> as the limit of an infinite sequence of fractions,
> there's no question of its being a nonnumber.
Nehmo
When someone says "there's no question" it means there's no doubt. But
you seem to be arguing the opposite.
--
**************************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
**************************
http://home.kc.rr.com/missouri/Susan_Talks.htm
Mark Wallace
It's just a shame you didn't write that with the humour I read it
with, 'Doc'.
Quite funny.
Mark Wallace
> "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:aeu24f$a1fev$1...@ID-113505.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> "my-wings" <night_...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>
>>> "Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:qus3hukmfs64k7kes...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Next time instead of saying "false scent" maybe I'll say
>> "counterfeit
>>>> penny" just to make the puzzle more challenging.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And...would I be able to use that fake coinage to buy a clue?
>>> Surely I
>> would
>>> come a copper <cough> trying to figure that out!
>>
>> I thought the phrase was "come a cropper", unless you were going
>> for wordplay.
>
> You are right on both counts.
Count the coppers, and the pounds will look after themselves.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
Little girl lost?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/mother.htm
____________________________
Mark Wallace
> Gerald Smyth
>> Zero can be conceived as an infinitesimally small number,
>
> Nehmo
> In non-mathematical language "infinitesimally small" is not the
> same as nothing. "Infinitesimally small" is always something.
>
> Gerald
>> either positive or negative. Since it can be derived
>> as the limit of an infinite sequence of fractions,
>> there's no question of its being a nonnumber.
>
> Nehmo
> When someone says "there's no question" it means there's no
> doubt. But you seem to be arguing the opposite.
Good grief!
Anyone who doesn't know that a zero's an aircraft is severly lacking
in mathematical knowledge.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
You want nanomachines?
I'll give you bloody nanomachines!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/nmaj.htm
____________________________
Bob Cunningham
<night_...@worldnet.att.net> said:
> "Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:qus3hukmfs64k7kes...@4ax.com...
[ . . . ]
> > In case you want to read more about "false scent", there's a main entry,
> > with about one page of discussion, under those words in Gowers's second
> > edition of _Fowler's Modern English Usage_.
> As to reading more, I have _The NEW Fowler's Modern English Usage, Third
> Edition, edited by R.W. Burchfield. The title page indicates that the first
> edition was edited by H.W. Fowler. There is no mention of the editor of the
> second edition. The reverse of the title page indicates: First edition 1926;
> Second edition 1965; Third edition 1996. This third edition of mine contains
> nothing between "false quantity" and "falsetto." What other important items
> might I be missing?
Burchfield's book is Fowler in name only. It's a completely new book that
treats Fowler's _Modern English Usage_ as just another guide to be
occasionally referred to. It's absurd to call it a "third edition". The
only justification for doing so is that it undoubtedly improved sales by
trading on Fowler's name.
The second edition, which was prepared by Sir Ernest Gowers, is truly an
update to the first edition. It contains much of Fowler's original text
with no modifications, but it also contains articles that have been
completely rewritten by Gowers.
To understand the relationships between the first and second editions,
it's quite helpful to read Gowers's Preface to the second edition. He
explains the guidelines he has used in making the revision, and he
discusses some reorganization he has performed and his reasons for doing
so.
I have all three books, and I occasionally find each of them useful.
Gowers says in his Preface:
I have been chary of making any substantial alterations except
for the purpose of bringing him up to date; I have only done so
in a few places where his exposition is exceptionally tortuous,
and it is clear that his point could be put more simply without
any sacrifice of Fowleresque flavour.
About alterations he says:
Only one important alteration has been made in the scope of
the book. The article TECHNICAL TERMS, thirty pages long,
has been omitted [...]. The entries that are relevant to
"modern English usage' have been transferred to their
alphabetical places in the book. For the rest, the publication
of other 'Oxford' books, especially the COD and those on
English and classical literature, has made it unnecessary to
keep them here. The eight pages of French words listed for
their pronunciation have also been omitted; a similar list is
now appended to the COD.
It should be obvious to most people that it's not appropriate to assume
that everyone will have a copy of "COD", which stands for _Concise Oxford
Dictionary_.
my-wings
"Mark Wallace" <mwallace...@dse.nl> wrote in message
news:aeubc0$a5a6f$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
> my-wings wrote:
> > "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:aeu24f$a1fev$1...@ID-113505.news.dfncis.de...
> >>
> >> "my-wings" <night_...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >> news:FDuQ8.46670$LC3.3558733@bgtnsc04-
> >> news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >>>
> >>> "Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:qus3hukmfs64k7kes...@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Next time instead of saying "false scent" maybe I'll say
> >> "counterfeit
> >>>> penny" just to make the puzzle more challenging.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> And...would I be able to use that fake coinage to buy a clue?
> >>> Surely I
> >> would
> >>> come a copper <cough> trying to figure that out!
> >>
> >> I thought the phrase was "come a cropper", unless you were going
> >> for wordplay.
> >
> > You are right on both counts.
>
> Count the coppers, and the pounds will look after themselves.
>
> --
> Mark Wallace
Or count on the coppers themselves to look after the pounds.
Alice
Gerald Smyth
[snip]
> Gerald
> > either positive or negative. Since it can be derived
> > as the limit of an infinite sequence of fractions,
> > there's no question of its being a nonnumber.
>
> Nehmo
> When someone says "there's no question" it means there's no doubt. But
> you seem to be arguing the opposite.
That's because 'There's no question' of something's being the case
means the opposite of 'There's no doubt' that something is the case.
'There's no question of zero's being a nonnumber' = 'There's no doubt
that zero is not a nonnumber' = 'Zero is a number' (however it is
conceived).
Gerald Smyth
jan_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>That's because 'There's no question' of something's being the case
>means the opposite of 'There's no doubt' that something is the case.
>'There's no question of zero's being a nonnumber' = 'There's no doubt
>that zero is not a nonnumber' = 'Zero is a number' (however it is
>conceived).
Just for the hell of it, perhaps you could enlighten me as to your
definition of a number.
I assume that a number is a symbol to represent a quantity. It would
seem to me that a symbol representing the lack of a quantity fits in
there somewhere.
Jan Sand
Mark Wallace
This isn't going to turn into another one of those damnable pun
threads that hound the group so, is it?
If it is, I'm doggedly keeping out of it.
rzed
"Gerald Smyth" <gerald...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d52a17.020620...@posting.google.com...
There seems to be a question centered on an idiom here. From what I
see, "no question of" means "no chance of" in the above sentence. I
don't think the phrase would necessarily be used that way in Yanklish,
where this construction seems to mean more like "there's no
questioning that [zero] is a nonnumber." That is, its being a
nonnumber cannot be questioned, or at least there's no sense
questioning it. Is this pondian? Regional? Idiosyncratic?
--
rzed
John Holmes
>
> As to reading more, I have _The NEW Fowler's Modern English Usage,
Third
> Edition, edited by R.W. Burchfield. The title page indicates that the
first
> edition was edited by H.W. Fowler. There is no mention of the editor
of the
> second edition. The reverse of the title page indicates: First edition
1926;
> Second edition 1965; Third edition 1996. This third edition of mine
contains
> nothing between "false quantity" and "falsetto." What other important
items
> might I be missing?
The second edition (Gowers) has consecutive entries for 'false
quantity', 'false scent' and 'fan(atic)'. No 'falsetto'.
--
Regards
John
R H Draney
news:d52a17.020621...@posting.google.com:
> 'There's no question of zero's being a nonnumber' = 'There's
> no doubt that zero is not a nonnumber' = 'Zero is a number'
> (however it is conceived).
I couldn't help but fail to disagree with you less....r
my-wings
Doesn't a pun thread end when someone brings it full circle, giving it
closure as it were, by inadvertently repeating a previously used reference?
To quote my first post:
Thanks to your post, I was forced to google (speaking of new verbs)
up
"false scent." It was either that, or have the term hound me all
day.
Just a thought.
Alice
Dr Robin Bignall
<night_...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[..]
>Doesn't a pun thread end when someone brings it full circle, giving it
>closure as it were, by inadvertently repeating a previously used reference?
>To quote my first post:
>
> Thanks to your post, I was forced to google (speaking of new verbs)
>up
> "false scent." It was either that, or have the term hound me all
>day.
>
>Just a thought.
>
It's a thought good enough to get one's canines into.
(Like Mark, I just hate littering the group with pun threads.)
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
Mark Wallace
I find people's adoration of pun threads to be extremely juvenile;
puppy love.
Don Aitken
<exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 00:42:13 GMT, "my-wings"
><night_...@worldnet.att.net> said:
>
>> "Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:qus3hukmfs64k7kes...@4ax.com...
>
>[ . . . ]
>
>> > In case you want to read more about "false scent", there's a main entry,
>> > with about one page of discussion, under those words in Gowers's second
>> > edition of _Fowler's Modern English Usage_.
>
>> As to reading more, I have _The NEW Fowler's Modern English Usage, Third
>> Edition, edited by R.W. Burchfield. The title page indicates that the first
>> edition was edited by H.W. Fowler. There is no mention of the editor of the
>> second edition. The reverse of the title page indicates: First edition 1926;
>> Second edition 1965; Third edition 1996. This third edition of mine contains
>> nothing between "false quantity" and "falsetto." What other important items
>> might I be missing?
>
>Burchfield's book is Fowler in name only. It's a completely new book that
>treats Fowler's _Modern English Usage_ as just another guide to be
>occasionally referred to. It's absurd to call it a "third edition". The
>only justification for doing so is that it undoubtedly improved sales by
>trading on Fowler's name.
>
[snip]
The current issue of the London Review of Books has a review of
McMorris's biography of Fowler by Alex Oliver, which is even more
severe on Burchfield: "Although, understandably, he wants to trade
under the same name ... his New _Fowler_ is not a different edition,
but a different book (another example of a slipshod extension: 'new'
here means 'not', as in 'New Labour/Criticism/man')."
Incidentally, McMorris publishes some correspondence between Fowler
and others at OUP which strongly suggests that MEU was published as a
reaction against the descriptive approach of the OED, with which all
of them had been involved. Fowler said he wanted "approval and
condemnation less stingily dealt out than has been possible in the
official atmosphere of a complete dictionary."
--
Don Aitken
Harvey V
<docr...@red.sylvania> wrote:
-snip-
>
> (Like Mark, I just hate littering the group with pun threads.)
We could make it a rule, and insist that people keep to the litter of
the law.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Who just couldn't let it lie.....