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