Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

A little humo[u]r for Valentine's Day

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Maria - 15 Feb 2007 03:16 GMT
[Apologies in advance.]

Just received in my email:

God Said, "Adam, I want you to do something for me."

Adam said, "Gladly, Lord, what do You want me to do?"

God said, "Go down into that valley."

Adam said, "What's a valley?"

God explained it to him. Then God said, "Cross the river."

Adam said, "What's a river?"

God explained that to him, and then said, "Go over to the hill..."

Adam said, "What is a hill?"

So, God explained to Adam what a hill was. He told Adam, "On the other
side of the hill you will find a cave."

Adam said, "What's a cave?"

After God explained, he said, "In the cave you will find a Woman."

Adam said, "What's a woman?"

So God explained that to him, too. Then, God said, "I want you to
reproduce."

Adam said, "How do I do that?"

God first said (under his breath) "Geez...!" And then, just like
everything else, God explained that to Adam, as well.

So, Adam goes down into the valley, across the river, and over the hill,
into the cave, and finds the woman.

Then, in about five minutes, he was back.

God, his patience wearing thin, said angrily, "What is it now?"
And Adam said...
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
"What's a headache?"
tinwhistler - 15 Feb 2007 07:10 GMT
> [Apologies in advance.]
[snip]
> "What's a headache?"

A perfect couple, no? She a headache and he a pill...  But today my
thoughts swing to Jessica Valentina Dragonette, born on Valentine's
Day and given "Valentina" as a name -- later to become America's queen
of radio; see:

http://208.109.67.98/jessicadragonette/bio.htm

Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
Oleg Lego - 15 Feb 2007 16:38 GMT
The tinwhistler entity posted thusly:

>> [Apologies in advance.]
>[snip]
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Day and given "Valentina" as a name -- later to become America's queen
>of radio; see:

They're a perfect couple. He's a proctologist and she's a pain in the
a.s.
Maria - 17 Feb 2007 02:54 GMT
tinwhistler wrote, in part:

> .......But today my
> thoughts swing to Jessica Valentina Dragonette, born on Valentine's
> Day and given "Valentina" as a name -- later to become America's queen
> of radio; see:
>
> http://208.109.67.98/jessicadragonette/bio.htm

Quite a woman, eh? Interesting reading. Thanks.

Signature

Maria
There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name.
(The email address I use in this newsgroup is munged.)

tinwhistler - 17 Feb 2007 04:28 GMT
[snip]

> Quite a woman, eh? Interesting reading. Thanks.
[snip]

Interesting reading, but needing your expertise in editing to correct
this sentence:

"...During each performance, Jessica would ascend a rickety ladder -
high above stage and seats - take her position on a tiny platform,
then on queue [!] sing her heart out! ..."

Aloha ~~~ Ozzie maland ~~~ San Diego
Oleg Lego - 17 Feb 2007 04:32 GMT
>[snip]
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>high above stage and seats - take her position on a tiny platform,
>then on queue [!] sing her heart out! ..."

Obviously there were a lot of folks lined up behind her, ready to take
her place should she faulter.
R H Draney - 17 Feb 2007 06:08 GMT
Oleg Lego filted:

>>"...During each performance, Jessica would ascend a rickety ladder -
>>high above stage and seats - take her position on a tiny platform,
>>then on queue [!] sing her heart out! ..."
>
>Obviously there were a lot of folks lined up behind her, ready to take
>her place should she faulter.

I just figured she wore her hair in a long pigtail....r

Signature

"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"

Maria - 18 Feb 2007 15:13 GMT
> tinwhistler posted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Obviously there were a lot of folks lined up behind her, ready to take
> her place should she faulter.

Was "faulter" deliberate (in the spirit of "queue") or is it a Canadian
spelling?

Just wondering.

Signature

Maria

Pat Durkin - 18 Feb 2007 17:41 GMT
>> tinwhistler posted:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Just wondering.
Glad you asked that last, Maria.  I was thinking about this just this
morning, and wondered if there were some other meaning, or if people got
tired of correcting errors that might be simple typos.  I didn't comment
earlier because of a situation in which "balk" and "baulk" seemed to be
synonymous.
"Falter" may be related, I suppose, if one considers a stumble to be a
fault. But it is a few steps beyond synonymous.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source
Faulter

\Fault"er\, n. One who commits a fault. [Obs.]

Behold the faulter here in sight. --Fairfax.

Fault (M-W Online)

Etymology: Middle English faute, falte, from Anglo-French, from Vulgar
Latin *fallita, from feminine of fallitus, past participle of Latin
fallere to deceive, disappoint
1 obsolete : LACK
2 a : WEAKNESS, FAILING; especially : a moral weakness less serious than
a vice b : a physical or intellectual imperfection or impairment :
Oleg Lego - 18 Feb 2007 21:27 GMT
>> tinwhistler posted:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>Was "faulter" deliberate (in the spirit of "queue") or is it a Canadian
>spelling?

Deliberate. "Queue" being misspelled, I envisioned a lineup of people
behind her ready to take over in case of a fault, which could be
construed as faltering.

A little humour, though as some might point out, very little.
Maria - 18 Feb 2007 15:07 GMT
> [snip]
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> high above stage and seats - take her position on a tiny platform,
> then on queue [!] sing her heart out! ..."

"During each performance, Jessica would ascend a rickety ladder, take
her position on a tiny platform high above the stage and seats, and
then, on cue, sing her heart out."

Not much better, actually. Oh, well.

Do we know whether "queue" was ever used in the "cue" sense in times
past?

Signature

Maria
There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name.
(The email address I use in this newsgroup is munged.)

tinwhistler - 18 Feb 2007 16:04 GMT
[snip]

> Do we know whether "queue" was ever used in the "cue" sense in times
> past?
[snip]

There's no indication in OED2 that such was ever the case.  It's hard
to prove a negative (a cliché in legalese).

Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
Peter Moylan - 19 Feb 2007 00:51 GMT
> It's hard to prove a negative (a cliché in legalese).

I've never understood that cliché. Does it mean that, for example, it is
difficult to prove an assertion like "he was not there" but much easier
to prove "he was absent"?

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

tinwhistler - 19 Feb 2007 04:34 GMT
> > It's hard to prove a negative (a cliché in legalese).
>
> I've never understood that cliché. Does it mean that, for example, it is
> difficult to prove an assertion like "he was not there" but much easier
> to prove "he was absent"?
[snip]

I think it goes back to Wittgenstein's logical positivism in
philososphy.  "Absence" is another negative, so proving that is also
proving a negative, harder than presenting witnesses who attest to a
person's presence at a time and place

Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego.
Claude Weil - 19 Feb 2007 09:17 GMT
>> It's hard to prove a negative (a cliché in legalese).
>
>I've never understood that cliché. Does it mean that, for example, it is
>difficult to prove an assertion like "he was not there" but much easier
>to prove "he was absent"?

Both are negative in meaning. But try to prove  that there are no
naturally green genuine rabbits, and you will see the difficulty.
Certainly nobody has ever seen any, but what does that prove ?

CW
Peter Moylan - 20 Feb 2007 00:20 GMT
> Both are negative in meaning. But try to prove  that there are no
> naturally green genuine rabbits, and you will see the difficulty.
> Certainly nobody has ever seen any, but what does that prove ?

You'll have to asked someone else. I have green rabbit repellent sprayed
on my lawn.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

John Kane - 20 Feb 2007 10:51 GMT
> > Both are negative in meaning. But try to prove  that there are no
> > naturally green genuine rabbits, and you will see the difficulty.
> > Certainly nobody has ever seen any, but what does that prove ?
>
> You'll have to asked someone else. I have green rabbit repellent sprayed
> on my lawn.

A wise precaution. Any country with a platypus should be prepared for
green rabbits.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
dcw - 20 Feb 2007 10:18 GMT
>>> It's hard to prove a negative (a cliché in legalese).
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>naturally green genuine rabbits, and you will see the difficulty.
>Certainly nobody has ever seen any, but what does that prove ?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    David
John Holmes - 20 Feb 2007 11:54 GMT
>>> It's hard to prove a negative (a cliché in legalese).
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> naturally green genuine rabbits, and you will see the difficulty.
> Certainly nobody has ever seen any, but what does that prove ?

But if you did find a green rabbit, it would be hard to prove that it wasn't
purple, because that would be trying to prove a negative. Is that the way it
works?

Signature

Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

Donna Richoux - 21 Feb 2007 13:44 GMT
> >>> It's hard to prove a negative (a cliché in legalese).
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> purple, because that would be trying to prove a negative. Is that the way it
> works?

Anyone who has basic common sense and grasp of a native language would
know that a rabbit that is entirely green is not at the same moment
entirely purple. That's not what the saying is about. If you find a
green rabbit, what that does is *disprove* the original claim (that were
no such things). "

"To prove" a statement is assumed to mean "prove that it is true," not
"prove either that it is true or prove that it is false."

It's easy as pie to *disprove* a negative claim -- all you have to do is
locate one counterexample (one green rabbit). The point is, it's hard to
*prove* a negative claim as true. You can't prove there are no green
rabbits by, for example, pointing to an endless number of other-colored
rabbits.

If you think about the question in terms of your being accused of a
crime and how you could try to prove that you did not do it, it might
make more sense. It's *possible* but it's often *difficult*.

I have to say, I'm surprised that anyone here has trouble grasping this
concept. Seems to me I experience it every few weeks on this newsgroup,
when trying to research the origin of some puzzling word, phrase, or
quotation. It would take some further thought to explain how it comes
up, though.

Signature

Best -- Donna Richoux

Alec McKenzie - 21 Feb 2007 15:34 GMT
> It's easy as pie to *disprove* a negative claim -- all you have to do is
> locate one counterexample (one green rabbit). The point is, it's hard to
> *prove* a negative claim as true. You can't prove there are no green
> rabbits by, for example, pointing to an endless number of other-colored
> rabbits.

It is interesting to note, however, that though the sighting of
a not-green rabbit does not *prove* that there are no green
rabbits, it is nevertheless a "confirming instance" of the
proposition that every rabbit is not green.

Furthermore, "there are no green rabbits" is logically the exact
equivalent of the statement "all green objects are not rabbits".
So it follows that every sighting of a green object that is not
a rabbit is also a confirming instance of the proposition that
there are no green rabbits.

Which means that you don't even need to look for rabbits. You
can stand in front of a large tree in full leaf, and point to
thousands of confirming instances that there are no green
rabbits.

Signature

Alec McKenzie
usenet@<surname>.me.uk

Mike Page - 20 Feb 2007 20:28 GMT
>>> It's hard to prove a negative (a cliché in legalese).
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>naturally green genuine rabbits, and you will see the difficulty.
>Certainly nobody has ever seen any, but what does that prove ?

But it is at least equally difficult to prove, or disprove, that
there are precisely three green rabbits. What is the special
characteristic of zero that is important?

Mike Page
Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Oleg Lego - 21 Feb 2007 01:11 GMT
>>>> It's hard to prove a negative (a cliché in legalese).
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>there are precisely three green rabbits. What is the special
>characteristic of zero that is important?

Three fellows visiting Scotland, riding in a train. They look out the
window and see a black sheep.

1st fellow: Oh look! Scottish sheep are black!

2nd fellow: You can't tell that from what you just saw. You can only
say that some Scottish sheep are black.

3rd fellow: Nonsense! All you can deduce from this is that at least
one Scottish sheep is black, on at least one side.

Hey, it's on-topic!
LFS - 21 Feb 2007 09:07 GMT
> Mike Page
> Posting trivia to aue since April 1997

(Thinks: after all that time you'd think he'd know about .sig separators...)

Signature

Laura, posting intelligent insights and witty aperçus to aue since
November 1997
(emulate St. George for email)

Archie Valparaiso - 21 Feb 2007 09:15 GMT
>> Mike Page
>> Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
>
>(Thinks: after all that time you'd think he'd know about .sig separators...)

I don't know much about the rest of Usenet, but there must be at least
a couple of dozen of us ten-year vets here in AUE (since September
1996 here). Is that normal in other groups too, or is this one just
especially difficult to get out of?

Signature

Archie Valparaiso

Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the
second best recyclers in Kent.

Amethyst Deceiver - 21 Feb 2007 10:51 GMT
>>> Mike Page
>>> Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> 1996 here). Is that normal in other groups too, or is this one just
> especially difficult to get out of?

alt.fan.pratchett has some posters who've been there since I started in
News in 1993. And uk.misc has very long-term posters too. I've only been
there since about 1998 myself...
John Dean - 22 Feb 2007 00:59 GMT
>>>> Mike Page
>>>> Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> in News in 1993. And uk.misc has very long-term posters too. I've
> only been there since about 1998 myself...

alt.fan.cecil-adams has its grognards too. Some (including me) post here
too.
Signature

John Dean
Oxford

Nick Spalding - 21 Feb 2007 11:00 GMT
Archie Valparaiso wrote, in <t13ot2do6rdsa5m1b5b253lcmppl02a3tr@4ax.com>
on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:15:50 +0100:

> >> Mike Page
> >> Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> 1996 here). Is that normal in other groups too, or is this one just
> especially difficult to get out of?

I'm a newcomer here but have been involved in alt.folklore.urban and
alt.fan.cecil-adams and alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent since late
1995.  I think I am here to stay too.
Signature

Nick Spalding

Donna Richoux - 21 Feb 2007 13:44 GMT
> Archie Valparaiso wrote, in <t13ot2do6rdsa5m1b5b253lcmppl02a3tr@4ax.com>
>  on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:15:50 +0100:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> alt.fan.cecil-adams and alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent since late
> 1995.  I think I am here to stay too.

I was just going to say that alt.folklore.urban had a number of
long-time participants, but I actually haven't read it in some months.
Is it still chugging along as usual?

Signature

Best - Donna Richoux

Nick Spalding - 21 Feb 2007 14:06 GMT
Donna Richoux wrote, in <1htw37t.1vy8md2znaygpN%trio@euronet.nl>
on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:44:22 +0100:

> > Archie Valparaiso wrote, in <t13ot2do6rdsa5m1b5b253lcmppl02a3tr@4ax.com>
> >  on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:15:50 +0100:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> long-time participants, but I actually haven't read it in some months.
> Is it still chugging along as usual?

Chugging is about it, averaging 30 posts a day for the last month or so
after a fallow period with very few at all.  The usual suspects are still
in evidence.  afca is flourishing with an average of about 420 posts a
day, a little more than here which is running around 350.
Signature

Nick Spalding

Sara Lorimer - 21 Feb 2007 15:50 GMT
> I was just going to say that alt.folklore.urban had a number of
> long-time participants, but I actually haven't read it in some months.
> Is it still chugging along as usual?

Not really. Traffic slowed way down -- many regulars left, and it
doesn't exactly welcome newcomers with cookies and lemonade, you know? I
stopped reading for a few months and just started up again, so I
might've missed some good discussions.

Signature

SML

Mike Page - 21 Feb 2007 19:50 GMT
>Archie Valparaiso wrote, in <t13ot2do6rdsa5m1b5b253lcmppl02a3tr@4ax.com>
> on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:15:50 +0100:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>alt.fan.cecil-adams and alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent since late
>1995.  I think I am here to stay too.

I'm obviously well aware that others have been here longer -
Evan's first post was probably chiselled on a tablet of stone,
written on papyrus or assembled from individual electrons.

The ten year mark coming up does, however, have a small personal
significance. Maybe we should offer a long service award and dole
them out at boinks. Inflatable sheep, anyone?

--
Mike Page
Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Sara Lorimer - 21 Feb 2007 20:10 GMT
> I'm obviously well aware that others have been here longer -
> Evan's first post was probably chiselled on a tablet of stone,
> written on papyrus or assembled from individual electrons.

Are there any people still posting regularly who were on the IBM list
AUE evolved from? (I may be mistaken about my AUE history -- truly, I
should re-read the FAQ one of these days.)

Signature

SML

Salvatore Volatile - 21 Feb 2007 20:18 GMT
> Are there any people still posting regularly who were on the IBM list
> AUE evolved from? (I may be mistaken about my AUE history -- truly, I
> should re-read the FAQ one of these days.)

That Truly sounds like revisionist history to me, but I've largely
avoided reading the FAQ myself (apart from the entry on falling off the
turnip truck).  Erk?

Signature

Salvatore Volatile

Jitze Couperus - 21 Feb 2007 23:26 GMT
>> Are there any people still posting regularly who were on the IBM list
>> AUE evolved from? (I may be mistaken about my AUE history -- truly, I
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>avoided reading the FAQ myself (apart from the entry on falling off the
>turnip truck).  Erk?

One of the problems is the claim that IBM invented and/or was
first to do <something>...

One of the precursors to the whole Usenet kind of thing was CDC's
PLATO system which interlinked a number of universities, research
organizations as well as Control Data itself.

Originaly devised as an instructional delivery system that would
support 1000's of students with interactive learning facilities,
it pioneered some very innovative ideas. These included both
hardware (such as plasma display terminals with touch-sentitive
screens, program-controlled rear projection of 35mm slide rolls
onto the interactive screen (so the program could synchronize
what was displayed and paint graphics or text "over" the image)
and a bunch of other very clever stuff (e.g. the "gooch box"
which was a sort of music synthesizer attached as a peripheral
to the terminal.

Besides thousands of "courses" in all kinds of subjects (e.g. I used
it to dissect a virtual frog, also to pretended I was a trauma
physician looking after a  patient at death's door - I never managed
to save him) there were also equivalents to instant messaging,
email, bulletin-board discussions and so forth. You can read more
about it at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO

Specifically it had a facility called PNOTES (Private Notes) which
was logically equivalent to today's email - sending a store-and-
forward message to a designated recipient(s).

And another facility was GNOTES (General Notes) where one
posted (or followed up) a note on a named bulletin board which
any participant could see who "subscribed" to that board. Thus
it also included the concept of "threads" as we know them today.

(Remember when we still argued about the merits of "pull" and "push"
modes of communication? Who would have thunk that eventually they'd
be manifested in email and usenet as we have them today )

And one of these boards was called SOTS (Save Our Tongue
Society) where the subject(s) under discussion closely paralleled
today's AUE - even unto flame wars, bogus etymologies, grocer's
apostrophes, words ending in "gry", food, sheep and what have you.

I know of at least two other quondam AUE regulars who participated
in SOTS. We're talking here about the early to mid 1970's (1972 for
PLATO IV) and going on into the 1980's. This was long before stuff
like TCP/IP, PC's, etc, and while the word "terminal" still meant
teletype. This was when IBM was claiming to have just invented virtual
memory (pace the  British ATLAS machine as well as various Burroughs
machines) and long before HP came out with its alleged discovery of
touch-screens. And this is also where Xerox PARC got some of its
ideas from...

I think its time to nap again

Jitze
R J Valentine - 24 Feb 2007 02:40 GMT
} Sara Lorimer wrote:
}> Are there any people still posting regularly who were on the IBM list
}> AUE evolved from? (I may be mistaken about my AUE history -- truly, I
}> should re-read the FAQ one of these days.)
}
} That Truly sounds like revisionist history to me, but I've largely
} avoided reading the FAQ myself (apart from the entry on falling off the
} turnip truck).  Erk?

I think Ron and Sparky were on something that AUE evolved from, but Ron
may be past caring.

Signature

rjv

Bob Cunningham - 24 Feb 2007 06:06 GMT
> } Sara Lorimer wrote:
> }> Are there any people still posting regularly who were on the IBM list
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I think Ron and Sparky were on something that AUE evolved from, but Ron
> may be past caring.

If by Ron you're referring to a1a51640, he and I butted
heads in the Ilink Wordplay Conference before I even knew
about the Internet.  When he started posting in
alt.usage.english under the different ID, I recognized the
weird, murky style and said I had little doubt he was Ron
Banister.  He seemed to deny the charge with a remark
something like "Ron would be amused", but it eventually
turned out that I was right.

But the Ilink Wordplay Conference was in no sense a
progenitor of alt.usage.english.
Robin Bignall - 21 Feb 2007 22:18 GMT
>> I'm obviously well aware that others have been here longer -
>> Evan's first post was probably chiselled on a tablet of stone,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>AUE evolved from? (I may be mistaken about my AUE history -- truly, I
>should re-read the FAQ one of these days.)

I wasn't aware that AUE was derived from any IBM forums, but I joined
IBM's English Forum and Nitpick Forum sometime around mid-1975, both
part of the IBMVM conferencing system.  There are several AUE names
that I recognise from those days, who will doubtless reveal themselves
should they wish.
Signature

Robin Bignall
Herts, England

Sara Lorimer - 21 Feb 2007 23:10 GMT
> I wasn't aware that AUE was derived from any IBM forums, but I joined
> IBM's English Forum and Nitpick Forum sometime around mid-1975, both
> part of the IBMVM conferencing system.

That's it -- I have the impression that AUE grew out of the Nitpick
Forum. I wouldn't put any money on it, though.

Signature

SML

Glenn Knickerbocker - 22 Feb 2007 13:18 GMT
>I wasn't aware that AUE was derived from any IBM forums, but I joined
>IBM's English Forum and Nitpick Forum sometime around mid-1975,

I think you mean 1985, unless they had some other home before IBMTEXT
and some other medium before TOOLSRUN.  Also, I'm sure you mean WORDS,
not ENGLISH, which didn't come along until after the phrase "a kindler,
gentler nation."

¬R     The anti-suffragists will continue to be eligible, won't they?
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/engel.html         --Ida Husted Harper
Robin Bignall - 22 Feb 2007 23:06 GMT
>>I wasn't aware that AUE was derived from any IBM forums, but I joined
>>IBM's English Forum and Nitpick Forum sometime around mid-1975,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>not ENGLISH, which didn't come along until after the phrase "a kindler,
>gentler nation."

I transferred to IBM Europe on Jan 1st, 1976, after 3 years on
assignment, and I was certainly participating in some forum(s) at that
time.  Later that year on a forum I kidded a couple of IBMers in New
York locations that they ought to meet, they got engaged, were married
in '78 and I've been in touch with them ever since.  They celebrated
their 25th anniversary in 2003, and he still works for what FSD became
when IBM sold it off.
Signature

Robin Bignall
Herts, England

Glenn Knickerbocker - 23 Feb 2007 20:07 GMT
> time.  Later that year on a forum I kidded a couple of IBMers in New
> York locations that they ought to meet, they got engaged, were married
> in '78 and I've been in touch with them ever since.  They celebrated
> their 25th anniversary in 2003, and he still works for what FSD became

OK, now you've sent me scrambling for the archives.  Assuming your whole
memory hasn't been knocked a decade off, it's a bizarre coincidence that
the one Owego IBMTEXT couple I remember, who met online, were married in
1988.  (Sadly, all traces of their courtship were thoroughly expunged
from IBMPC long before it was archived.)

¬R
Robin Bignall - 23 Feb 2007 22:41 GMT
>> time.  Later that year on a forum I kidded a couple of IBMers in New
>> York locations that they ought to meet, they got engaged, were married
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>1988.  (Sadly, all traces of their courtship were thoroughly expunged
>from IBMPC long before it was archived.)

Now you've got me worried.  I shall do some emailing.
Signature

Robin Bignall
Herts, England

Peter Moylan - 22 Feb 2007 11:06 GMT
>> I'm obviously well aware that others have been here longer - Evan's
>> first post was probably chiselled on a tablet of stone, written on
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>  AUE evolved from? (I may be mistaken about my AUE history -- truly,
> I should re-read the FAQ one of these days.)

I subscribed to AUE the very day the "newgroup" message hit our news
server, but I have to admit to complete ignorance of what had happened
before that. If it was indeed an IBM list, that would explain the large
number of ex-IBMers in the original crowd.

It took me at least two years to realise that the signature "Truly
Donovan" wasn't a way of saying "Yes, I really am the famous folk singer."

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

Oleg Lego - 22 Feb 2007 00:27 GMT
>Archie Valparaiso wrote, in <t13ot2do6rdsa5m1b5b253lcmppl02a3tr@4ax.com>
> on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:15:50 +0100:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>alt.fan.cecil-adams and alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent since late
>1995.  I think I am here to stay too.

I honestly don't know when I first started accessing news, but it was
very soon after buying an Amiga and helping write a terminal program
for it. THat would put it in about 1987-88 or so. Mostly I read the
Amiga newsgroups.
Peter Duncanson - 21 Feb 2007 11:55 GMT
>>> Mike Page
>>> Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>1996 here). Is that normal in other groups too, or is this one just
>especially difficult to get out of?

Perhaps "The only way out is death".

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Sara Lorimer - 21 Feb 2007 15:50 GMT

> I don't know much about the rest of Usenet, but there must be at least
> a couple of dozen of us ten-year vets here in AUE (since September
> 1996 here). Is that normal in other groups too, or is this one just
> especially difficult to get out of?

I've been on Usenet for nine years or so. AUE is the only group I've
stayed in that whole time, although I've spent a year or more in other
groups.

Signature

SML

Mike Page - 21 Feb 2007 19:44 GMT
>> Mike Page
>> Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
>
>(Thinks: after all that time you'd think he'd know about .sig separators...)
Signature

Laura, posting intelligent insights and witty aperçus to aue
since
November 1997
(emulate St. George for email)

At least I afforded you the opportunity to insert what you may
fondly believe to be an IIAWA without having to cut and paste the
sig.

Surely, somebody sufficiently keen to earn pedant points by
inserting the cedilla could have gone the extra inch and put the
word in italics.

Looking forward to the next coruscating conspectus,

--
Mike Page
Posting trivia to aue since April 1997

Evan Kirshenbaum - 28 Feb 2007 00:17 GMT
>>Both are negative in meaning. But try to prove that there are no
>>naturally green genuine rabbits, and you will see the difficulty.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> there are precisely three green rabbits. What is the special
> characteristic of zero that is important?

It's equally difficult, but only because it boils down to the same
question.  First you have to show that there are three green rabbits,
which is straightforward (assuming it's true).  Then you have to show
that a fourth green rabbit doesn't exist, which is the tricky bit.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |It's gotten to the point where the
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |only place you can get work done is
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |at home, because no one bugs you,
                                      |and the best place to entertain
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |yourself is at work, because the
   (650)857-7572                      |Internet connections are faster.
                                      |              Scott Adams
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Nick Spalding - 28 Feb 2007 11:51 GMT
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote, in <fy8rdtjz.fsf@hpl.hp.com>
on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:17:36 -0800:

> >>Both are negative in meaning. But try to prove that there are no
> >>naturally green genuine rabbits, and you will see the difficulty.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> which is straightforward (assuming it's true).  Then you have to show
> that a fourth green rabbit doesn't exist, which is the tricky bit.

And given the habits of rabbits not likely to remain true for long.
Signature

Nick Spalding

Donna Richoux - 19 Feb 2007 10:06 GMT
> > It's hard to prove a negative (a cliché in legalese).
>
> I've never understood that cliché. Does it mean that, for example, it is
> difficult to prove an assertion like "he was not there" but much easier
> to prove "he was absent"?

No, not at all. It means it's harder to prove, convincingly and
conclusively, that "he was not there," than it would be to prove "he was
there."

"Negative" in this case isn't restricted to English words like "not" and
"never." It includes words like "absent" whose basic idea is a negative,
simply a Latin-based synonym for "not there."

If he was there (whoever "he" was and wherever "there" was), you might
find witnesses to vouch for it, or photos, or tangible evidence left
behind. Maybe you can't do any of those things, but you have a decent
chance.

If he in truth was not there, other attendees probably had no reason to
mention it; if pressed, they might just say that they didn't see him, or
remember seeing him. "Well, nobody noticed him" is inconclusive. He
might not have left any tangible evidence and yet he still could have
been there. To prove now to a reasonable certainty that he hadn't been
"there" would take evidence that probably doesn't exist, like security
camera tapes from every possible angle, and DNA traces, and exhaustive
interviews with every participant. "After a full investigation, we must
conclude that there was no evidence that he was there."

It's easier to prove that "Famous Author wrote this poem that has his
name on it" -- if he did -- than "Famous Author did not write this poem,
even though his name appears on it." (I'm thinking Clement Moore and
"Night Before Christmas.") Both could take some work. For the first, if
you find the poem in his handwriting, and notes and letters he wrote
about it right at the time, including possibly exchanges with a
publisher -- then you have a good case (although the a small chance
still remains he copied it from some unknown source). For the second,
well, volumes have been written about the unlikelihood of Moore and the
likelihood of the other fellow (Henry Livingston?)

Signature

Best - Donna Richoux

John Dean - 21 Feb 2007 02:28 GMT
>> It's hard to prove a negative (a cliché in legalese).
>
> I've never understood that cliché. Does it mean that, for example, it
> is difficult to prove an assertion like "he was not there" but much
> easier to prove "he was absent"?

They're both negatives. The positive value is "He was there" equals "He was
not absent". Usually easy to prove except in esoteric detective stories.
Proving he was *not* there is tricky. Prove the positive "he was somewhere
else" and you're laughing, but that isn't proving the negative, it's proving
a positive from which you can infer an infinity of negatives.
If you want to prove you can drive a car, you climb behind the wheel and do
it.
If you want to prove you *can't* drive a car you ... do what?
Signature

John Dean
Oxford

Peter Moylan - 15 Feb 2007 10:17 GMT
> [Apologies in advance.]
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Adam said, "What's a valley?"
[...]

=======================

Version 2:

God: Adam, you're looking a little lonely. Would you like me to make a
woman for you?

Adam: What's a woman?

God: Adam, a woman is what a man needs more than anything else in the
world. She will listen to your cares, she will ease your sorrows, she
will be good company. She will care for you, she will be your faithful
companion, she will always be in good humour. You will achieve a
closeness such as you have never imagined.

Adam: Well, that sounds pretty good, but what will it cost me?

God: A woman does not come cheaply, it's true. It will cost you an arm
and a leg, but what price could you put on such a perfect creature?

Adam: An arm and a leg? No, that's too much. What can you do for a rib?

=======================

Version 3:

God: Good evening, Adam. What have you been doing today?

Adam: Oh, many things, Lord. Eve and I went exploring. Then we relaxed
by the riverbank and made wild passionate love. And after that, we both
went for a swim in the river.

God: You swam in the river? Oh, Adam, Adam, do you realise what you have
just done? Now all the fish will smell like that.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.