Re: For Agent Users

[GregP]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:58:42 -0400, Charlie Choc
> wrote:

>In Agent 2 it's under Group/Default Properties/Posting Messages.


Thanks! And I *did* look at every properties screen...

[GregP]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:58:42 -0400, Charlie Choc
> wrote:

>In Agent 2 it's under Group/Default Properties/Posting Messages.


Thanks! And I *did* look at every properties screen...

[Mark Bowen]

"Tim J." > wrote in message
...

> Let's just say that some correct-thinking conservative (me) is hiring and
> doesn't want to surround himself with pansy liberals (Greg). . . :)

Well you do have that right and I don't see anything wrong with that kind of thinkin'.

> --
> TL,
> Tim
> who actually doesn't care one way or the other as long as the work gets done.

Oh? Then you would want a "pansy liberal[ ]" (Greg).

> Honest.

Same here.

Mark

[Mark Bowen]

"Tim J." > wrote in message
...

> Let's just say that some correct-thinking conservative (me) is hiring and
> doesn't want to surround himself with pansy liberals (Greg). . . :)

Well you do have that right and I don't see anything wrong with that kind of thinkin'.

> --
> TL,
> Tim
> who actually doesn't care one way or the other as long as the work gets done.

Oh? Then you would want a "pansy liberal[ ]" (Greg).

> Honest.

Same here.

Mark

[Frank Reid]

> Oh? Then you would want a "pansy liberal[ ]" (Greg).

Or, maybe, a Log Cabin Republican?


--
Frank Reid (unqualified on two counts)
Reverse email to reply

[Frank Reid]

> Oh? Then you would want a "pansy liberal[ ]" (Greg).

Or, maybe, a Log Cabin Republican?


--
Frank Reid (unqualified on two counts)
Reverse email to reply

[Wayne Harrison]

"Tim J." > wrote

> Is Fortenberry unemployed? ;-)

forty is to employment as black holes are to matter.

yfitons
wayno(and yes, i am certain that some ****ing science geek is going to
*eviscerate* my ass on that one; but, you know what i mean--right, 40?)

[Wayne Harrison]

"Tim J." > wrote

> Is Fortenberry unemployed? ;-)

forty is to employment as black holes are to matter.

yfitons
wayno(and yes, i am certain that some ****ing science geek is going to
*eviscerate* my ass on that one; but, you know what i mean--right, 40?)

[Wolfgang]

"Jonathan Cook" > wrote in message
...
> ....if
> someone was recording my every statement, I'm sure they could pick
> out plenty that would make me sound dumber than a three-year-old
> crowbar :-) I don't see why I'm a "wimp" if I don't want to support
> that....

Because noting that you are a "pussy" makes [rw]'s dick bigger.

Wolfgang
c'mon guys......TRY to keep up here, huh?

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
...

> If you don't want to be held responsible for what you post on Usenet,
> then don't post on Usenet.

Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)

Regal Canid

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
...

> If you don't want to be held responsible for what you post on Usenet,
> then don't post on Usenet.

Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)

Regal Canid

[Mark Bowen]

"rw" > wrote in message
...

> If you don't want to be held responsible for what you post on Usenet,
> then don't post on Usenet.

Wasn't it YOU who was tellin' me, just the other day, that I shouldn't try to emulate
l'il Kenny?

Mark --who now know that there are bound to be other valid reasons to X-No-Archives,
besides the excellent reasons that Greg and Jon have already posted.--

[Mark Bowen]

"rw" > wrote in message
...

> If you don't want to be held responsible for what you post on Usenet,
> then don't post on Usenet.

Wasn't it YOU who was tellin' me, just the other day, that I shouldn't try to emulate
l'il Kenny?

Mark --who now know that there are bound to be other valid reasons to X-No-Archives,
besides the excellent reasons that Greg and Jon have already posted.--

[GaryM]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in :

>
> Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)

Everyone knows your real name is an anagram, so fess up Wolfgang, or
should I say, Mr. COWBANE FINE HIGGLES, or is WINNEBAGO FISC HEGEL?

(Courtesy: http://www.wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=Wolfgang+Siebeneich&include=&exclude=&d=3&n=&m=&source=adv&a=n&l=n&language=english&where=

[GaryM]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in :

>
> Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)

Everyone knows your real name is an anagram, so fess up Wolfgang, or
should I say, Mr. COWBANE FINE HIGGLES, or is WINNEBAGO FISC HEGEL?

(Courtesy: http://www.wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=Wolfgang+Siebeneich&include=&exclude=&d=3&n=&m=&source=adv&a=n&l=n&language=english&where=

[Mark Bowen]

"GaryM" > wrote in message
. 3.44...
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in :
>
> >
> > Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)
>
> Everyone knows your real name is an anagram, so fess up Wolfgang, or
> should I say, Mr. COWBANE FINE HIGGLES, or is WINNEBAGO FISC HEGEL?

I'm partial to Mr. COWBANE FINE HIGGLES. Y'all reckon we could vote on this?

Mark

[Mark Bowen]

"GaryM" > wrote in message
. 3.44...
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in :
>
> >
> > Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)
>
> Everyone knows your real name is an anagram, so fess up Wolfgang, or
> should I say, Mr. COWBANE FINE HIGGLES, or is WINNEBAGO FISC HEGEL?

I'm partial to Mr. COWBANE FINE HIGGLES. Y'all reckon we could vote on this?

Mark

[Wolfgang]

"GaryM" > wrote in message
. 3.44...
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in :
>
> >
> > Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)
>
> Everyone knows your real name is an anagram, so fess up Wolfgang, or
> should I say, Mr. COWBANE FINE HIGGLES, or is WINNEBAGO FISC HEGEL?

Everyone knows that the Snedeker's speak only to the Fisc-Hegels........and
the Fisc-Hegels speak only to Dog.

Gnagflow

[Wolfgang]

"GaryM" > wrote in message
. 3.44...
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in :
>
> >
> > Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)
>
> Everyone knows your real name is an anagram, so fess up Wolfgang, or
> should I say, Mr. COWBANE FINE HIGGLES, or is WINNEBAGO FISC HEGEL?

Everyone knows that the Snedeker's speak only to the Fisc-Hegels........and
the Fisc-Hegels speak only to Dog.

Gnagflow

[GregP]

On 30 Aug 2004 21:51:23 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

>
>That said, I've been posting through google for a while, since
>our local news service wasn't very reliable getting messages out.
>But before that, I actually made a list (automatically, not by
>hand) of several years worth of posts (all that C+R stuff!), and
>took the time to ask google to remove them....However, I just
>checked and they're back! It seems that google has decided that
>I can't legally ask them to be removed!


Ask again. I know several people who persisted and eventually
they disappeared. The posts, I mean (been reading too much
about Ashcroft lately :-)

[GregP]

On 30 Aug 2004 21:51:23 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

>
>That said, I've been posting through google for a while, since
>our local news service wasn't very reliable getting messages out.
>But before that, I actually made a list (automatically, not by
>hand) of several years worth of posts (all that C+R stuff!), and
>took the time to ask google to remove them....However, I just
>checked and they're back! It seems that google has decided that
>I can't legally ask them to be removed!


Ask again. I know several people who persisted and eventually
they disappeared. The posts, I mean (been reading too much
about Ashcroft lately :-)

[GregP]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:49:50 -0500, "Wolfgang" >
wrote:

>
>Yep. It's a lot like using a pseudonym.
>
>Majestic Lobo

You must be the son of the late Finance Minister of Bwanda-Sgundi..

A pseudonym accomplishes that. But it's not the same in that when
you use your name, or a nickname that everyone knows is yours,
which is usually the case of the "regulars" in a newsgroup, you *are*
standing behind what you say.

[GregP]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:49:50 -0500, "Wolfgang" >
wrote:

>
>Yep. It's a lot like using a pseudonym.
>
>Majestic Lobo

You must be the son of the late Finance Minister of Bwanda-Sgundi..

A pseudonym accomplishes that. But it's not the same in that when
you use your name, or a nickname that everyone knows is yours,
which is usually the case of the "regulars" in a newsgroup, you *are*
standing behind what you say.

[Mark Bowen]

"GregP" > wrote in message
...
> Look at the header info below.from one of my posts of last week.

Thanks! I may just look into this, as I might want to run for POTUS one day and I
certainly wouldn't want anything I say from here on out to be used against me in the
court of public opinion :~^)

Mark --not that a mild mannered pussy (used in the most gender neutral sense
possible) like myself would ever say anything offensive to anyone else!--

[Mark Bowen]

"GregP" > wrote in message
...
> Look at the header info below.from one of my posts of last week.

Thanks! I may just look into this, as I might want to run for POTUS one day and I
certainly wouldn't want anything I say from here on out to be used against me in the
court of public opinion :~^)

Mark --not that a mild mannered pussy (used in the most gender neutral sense
possible) like myself would ever say anything offensive to anyone else!--

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:
> "rw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>If you don't want to be held responsible for what you post on Usenet,
>>then don't post on Usenet.
>
>
> Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)

Most ROFF regulars know my real name, and for those who don't (and who
care) they can find it in an archived post. To save them the trouble,
it's Stephen Thomas Barnard and I live in Stanley, Idaho. I'm in the
phone book.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:
> "rw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>If you don't want to be held responsible for what you post on Usenet,
>>then don't post on Usenet.
>
>
> Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)

Most ROFF regulars know my real name, and for those who don't (and who
care) they can find it in an archived post. To save them the trouble,
it's Stephen Thomas Barnard and I live in Stanley, Idaho. I'm in the
phone book.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Mark Bowen]

"rw" > wrote in message
...

> I'm in the
> phone book.

I would have thought a man of your means would have larger accommodations?

Mark

[Mark Bowen]

"rw" > wrote in message
...

> I'm in the
> phone book.

I would have thought a man of your means would have larger accommodations?

Mark

[Wayne Knight]

"Mark Bowen" > wrote in message
...

>
> Wasn't it YOU who was tellin' me, just the other day, that I shouldn't try
to emulate
> l'il Kenny?
>

No, that was the prickmaster afterall, Steve just tried to tell you that
there's no way you could emulate kenny. ;)

[Wayne Knight]

"Mark Bowen" > wrote in message
...

>
> Wasn't it YOU who was tellin' me, just the other day, that I shouldn't try
to emulate
> l'il Kenny?
>

No, that was the prickmaster afterall, Steve just tried to tell you that
there's no way you could emulate kenny. ;)

[Frank Reid]

>Stephen Thomas Barnard and I live in Stanley, Idaho.

And I'm hooked on phonics...



--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

[Frank Reid]

>Stephen Thomas Barnard and I live in Stanley, Idaho.

And I'm hooked on phonics...



--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

[Mark Bowen]

"Wayne Knight" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark Bowen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > Wasn't it YOU who was tellin' me, just the other day, that I shouldn't try
> to emulate
> > l'il Kenny?
> >
>
> No, that was the prickmaster afterall, Steve just tried to tell you that
> there's no way you could emulate kenny. ;)

Actually, I was referring to another time when I was actin' like a prick postin' L'il
Kenny's post about rw's family.

I shouldn't have said "just the other day," as it WAS some months ago.

Mark --who is more than happy to apologize on ROFF! Just ask me.--

[Mark Bowen]

"Wayne Knight" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark Bowen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > Wasn't it YOU who was tellin' me, just the other day, that I shouldn't try
> to emulate
> > l'il Kenny?
> >
>
> No, that was the prickmaster afterall, Steve just tried to tell you that
> there's no way you could emulate kenny. ;)

Actually, I was referring to another time when I was actin' like a prick postin' L'il
Kenny's post about rw's family.

I shouldn't have said "just the other day," as it WAS some months ago.

Mark --who is more than happy to apologize on ROFF! Just ask me.--

[Wolfgang]

"GregP" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:49:50 -0500, "Wolfgang" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Yep. It's a lot like using a pseudonym.
> >
> >Majestic Lobo
>
> You must be the son of the late Finance Minister of Bwanda-Sgundi..

And Daddy promised to send me $75,000,000 just as soon
as......um......whatsis name who's holding the money gets my account number!
:)

> A pseudonym accomplishes that. But it's not the same in that when
> you use your name, or a nickname that everyone knows is yours,
> which is usually the case of the "regulars" in a newsgroup, you *are*
> standing behind what you say.

Hm......o.k.......but then......hypothetically speaking, mind
you.......anyone who thinks that trying to keep his missives from being
archived is a "pussy" AND uses a pseudonym because he has ample reason to
want to remain anonymous is going to look kind of silly whichever end of it
you look from........right? :)

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"GregP" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:49:50 -0500, "Wolfgang" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Yep. It's a lot like using a pseudonym.
> >
> >Majestic Lobo
>
> You must be the son of the late Finance Minister of Bwanda-Sgundi..

And Daddy promised to send me $75,000,000 just as soon
as......um......whatsis name who's holding the money gets my account number!
:)

> A pseudonym accomplishes that. But it's not the same in that when
> you use your name, or a nickname that everyone knows is yours,
> which is usually the case of the "regulars" in a newsgroup, you *are*
> standing behind what you say.

Hm......o.k.......but then......hypothetically speaking, mind
you.......anyone who thinks that trying to keep his missives from being
archived is a "pussy" AND uses a pseudonym because he has ample reason to
want to remain anonymous is going to look kind of silly whichever end of it
you look from........right? :)

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"Frank Reid" <moc.deepselbac@diersicnarf> wrote in message
...
> >Stephen Thomas Barnard and I live in Stanley, Idaho.
>
> And I'm hooked on phonics...

I'm Spartacus.

Spartacus.

[Wolfgang]

"Frank Reid" <moc.deepselbac@diersicnarf> wrote in message
...
> >Stephen Thomas Barnard and I live in Stanley, Idaho.
>
> And I'm hooked on phonics...

I'm Spartacus.

Spartacus.

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>If you don't want to be held responsible for what you post on Usenet,
> >>then don't post on Usenet.
> >
> >
> > Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)
>
> Most ROFF regulars know my real name, and for those who don't (and who
> care) they can find it in an archived post. To save them the trouble,
> it's Stephen Thomas Barnard and I live in Stanley, Idaho. I'm in the
> phone book.

N44° 12.703'-W114° 56.726'.....more or less.
Zip code: 83278
Area code: 208

Wolfgang
for more detailed and precise information, (phone numbers, children's
names, etc.) contact rdean c/o roff.

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>If you don't want to be held responsible for what you post on Usenet,
> >>then don't post on Usenet.
> >
> >
> > Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)
>
> Most ROFF regulars know my real name, and for those who don't (and who
> care) they can find it in an archived post. To save them the trouble,
> it's Stephen Thomas Barnard and I live in Stanley, Idaho. I'm in the
> phone book.

N44° 12.703'-W114° 56.726'.....more or less.
Zip code: 83278
Area code: 208

Wolfgang
for more detailed and precise information, (phone numbers, children's
names, etc.) contact rdean c/o roff.

[rw]

Mark Bowen wrote:

> "rw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>I'm in the
>>phone book.
>
>
> I would have thought a man of your means would have larger accommodations?

A man of means? I live in an 800 square foot, 50 year old log cabin.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Mark Bowen wrote:

> "rw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>I'm in the
>>phone book.
>
>
> I would have thought a man of your means would have larger accommodations?

A man of means? I live in an 800 square foot, 50 year old log cabin.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
...
> Mark Bowen wrote:
>
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>I'm in the
> >>phone book.
> >
> >
> > I would have thought a man of your means would have larger
accommodations?
>
> A man of means? I live in an 800 square foot, 50 year old log cabin.

Hm.......o.k., I think I see the problem here. What Mark said is that he
thought a man of your means would have larger accommodations.

Wolfgang
who knows, as do some of our colleagues both here and abroad, that english
is a difficult language.

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
...
> Mark Bowen wrote:
>
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>I'm in the
> >>phone book.
> >
> >
> > I would have thought a man of your means would have larger
accommodations?
>
> A man of means? I live in an 800 square foot, 50 year old log cabin.

Hm.......o.k., I think I see the problem here. What Mark said is that he
thought a man of your means would have larger accommodations.

Wolfgang
who knows, as do some of our colleagues both here and abroad, that english
is a difficult language.

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:
> "rw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> N44° 12.703'-W114° 56.726'.....more or less.
> Zip code: 83278
> Area code: 208
>

Can't get anything past you.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:
> "rw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> N44° 12.703'-W114° 56.726'.....more or less.
> Zip code: 83278
> Area code: 208
>

Can't get anything past you.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:

> "rw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Mark Bowen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"rw" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm in the
>>>>phone book.
>>>
>>>
>>>I would have thought a man of your means would have larger
>
> accommodations?
>
>>A man of means? I live in an 800 square foot, 50 year old log cabin.
>
>
> Hm.......o.k., I think I see the problem here. What Mark said is that he
> thought a man of your means would have larger accommodations.
>
> Wolfgang
> who knows, as do some of our colleagues both here and abroad, that english
> is a difficult language.

Can't get anything past you.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:

> "rw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Mark Bowen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"rw" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm in the
>>>>phone book.
>>>
>>>
>>>I would have thought a man of your means would have larger
>
> accommodations?
>
>>A man of means? I live in an 800 square foot, 50 year old log cabin.
>
>
> Hm.......o.k., I think I see the problem here. What Mark said is that he
> thought a man of your means would have larger accommodations.
>
> Wolfgang
> who knows, as do some of our colleagues both here and abroad, that english
> is a difficult language.

Can't get anything past you.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Mark Bowen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"rw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I'm in the
> >>>>phone book.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I would have thought a man of your means would have larger
> >
> > accommodations?
> >
> >>A man of means? I live in an 800 square foot, 50 year old log cabin.
> >
> >
> > Hm.......o.k., I think I see the problem here. What Mark said is that
he
> > thought a man of your means would have larger accommodations.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> > who knows, as do some of our colleagues both here and abroad, that
english
> > is a difficult language.
>
> Can't get anything past you.

Who knows? Keep trying.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Mark Bowen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"rw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I'm in the
> >>>>phone book.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I would have thought a man of your means would have larger
> >
> > accommodations?
> >
> >>A man of means? I live in an 800 square foot, 50 year old log cabin.
> >
> >
> > Hm.......o.k., I think I see the problem here. What Mark said is that
he
> > thought a man of your means would have larger accommodations.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> > who knows, as do some of our colleagues both here and abroad, that
english
> > is a difficult language.
>
> Can't get anything past you.

Who knows? Keep trying.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > N44° 12.703'-W114° 56.726'.....more or less.
> > Zip code: 83278
> > Area code: 208
> >
>
> Can't get anything past you.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Keep trying.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > N44° 12.703'-W114° 56.726'.....more or less.
> > Zip code: 83278
> > Area code: 208
> >
>
> Can't get anything past you.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Keep trying.

Wolfgang

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:
>
> Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Keep trying.

I'm not trying to get anything past you.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:
>
> Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Keep trying.

I'm not trying to get anything past you.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> >
> > Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Keep trying.
>
> I'm not trying to get anything past you.

How fortunate. As you noted, you haven't succeeded.

Wolfgang
yeah, he's lying but.......well, see above. :)

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> >
> > Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Keep trying.
>
> I'm not trying to get anything past you.

How fortunate. As you noted, you haven't succeeded.

Wolfgang
yeah, he's lying but.......well, see above. :)

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:
> "rw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Wolfgang wrote:
>>
>>>Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Keep trying.
>>
>>I'm not trying to get anything past you.
>
>
> How fortunate. As you noted, you haven't succeeded.

Can't get anything past you.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:
> "rw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Wolfgang wrote:
>>
>>>Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Keep trying.
>>
>>I'm not trying to get anything past you.
>
>
> How fortunate. As you noted, you haven't succeeded.

Can't get anything past you.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Tim J.]

"rw" wrote...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> > "rw" wrote...
> >
> >>If you don't want to be held responsible for what you post on Usenet,
> >>then don't post on Usenet.
> >
> > Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)
>
> Most ROFF regulars know my real name, and for those who don't (and who
> care) they can find it in an archived post. To save them the trouble,
> it's Stephen Thomas Barnard and I live in Stanley, Idaho. I'm in the
> phone book.

It's always all about you, isn't it? ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Tim J.]

"rw" wrote...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> > "rw" wrote...
> >
> >>If you don't want to be held responsible for what you post on Usenet,
> >>then don't post on Usenet.
> >
> > Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)
>
> Most ROFF regulars know my real name, and for those who don't (and who
> care) they can find it in an archived post. To save them the trouble,
> it's Stephen Thomas Barnard and I live in Stanley, Idaho. I'm in the
> phone book.

It's always all about you, isn't it? ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Danl]

"bruiser" > wrote in message
...
> Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
>
> bruce h ;-)
>


Wasn't he a quarterback for the Broncos?

Danl

[Danl]

"bruiser" > wrote in message
...
> Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
>
> bruce h ;-)
>


Wasn't he a quarterback for the Broncos?

Danl

[rw]

Tim J. wrote:
>
>
> It's always all about you, isn't it? ;-)

Yep. ME, ME, ME!

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Tim J. wrote:
>
>
> It's always all about you, isn't it? ;-)

Yep. ME, ME, ME!

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

bruiser wrote:

> Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?

Dopenhagen.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

bruiser wrote:

> Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?

Dopenhagen.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[bruiser]

Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?

bruce h ;-)

[bruiser]

Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?

bruce h ;-)

[Cyli]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:40:55 -0400, "Mark Bowen"
> wrote:


>> Everyone knows your real name is an anagram, so fess up Wolfgang, or
>> should I say, Mr. COWBANE FINE HIGGLES, or is WINNEBAGO FISC HEGEL?
>
>I'm partial to Mr. COWBANE FINE HIGGLES. Y'all reckon we could vote on this?
>


I'll go with you on that one, Mark, uh, Opie, uh Beau's dad.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

[Cyli]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:40:55 -0400, "Mark Bowen"
> wrote:


>> Everyone knows your real name is an anagram, so fess up Wolfgang, or
>> should I say, Mr. COWBANE FINE HIGGLES, or is WINNEBAGO FISC HEGEL?
>
>I'm partial to Mr. COWBANE FINE HIGGLES. Y'all reckon we could vote on this?
>


I'll go with you on that one, Mark, uh, Opie, uh Beau's dad.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

[GregP]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:29:33 -0500, "Wolfgang" >
wrote:

>
>Hm......o.k.......but then......hypothetically speaking, mind
>you.......anyone who thinks that trying to keep his missives from being
>archived is a "pussy" AND uses a pseudonym because he has ample reason to
>want to remain anonymous is going to look kind of silly whichever end of it
>you look from........right? :)

Silly ? I don't know. Maybe hypocritical, dishonest, and perhaps
even self-delusional, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he's silly
(else I'd have to slap an X-No-Archive on).

[GregP]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:29:33 -0500, "Wolfgang" >
wrote:

>
>Hm......o.k.......but then......hypothetically speaking, mind
>you.......anyone who thinks that trying to keep his missives from being
>archived is a "pussy" AND uses a pseudonym because he has ample reason to
>want to remain anonymous is going to look kind of silly whichever end of it
>you look from........right? :)

Silly ? I don't know. Maybe hypocritical, dishonest, and perhaps
even self-delusional, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he's silly
(else I'd have to slap an X-No-Archive on).

[GregP]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:41:35 -0700, "bruiser"
> wrote:

>Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
>
>bruce h ;-)
>

"D"

[GregP]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:41:35 -0700, "bruiser"
> wrote:

>Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
>
>bruce h ;-)
>

"D"

[rw]

Cyli wrote:

> Cyli
> r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
> Often taunted by trout.
>
> http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Judging just by your sig, cyli, I would never have thought that you'd be
so ANAL.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Cyli wrote:

> Cyli
> r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
> Often taunted by trout.
>
> http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Judging just by your sig, cyli, I would never have thought that you'd be
so ANAL.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Frank Reid]

> Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?

Whats a Denway?

(someones gotta throw out the straight lines)
--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

[Frank Reid]

> Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?

Whats a Denway?

(someones gotta throw out the straight lines)
--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

[Tim J.]

Frank Reid wrote:
>> Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
>
> Whats a Denway?
>
> (someones gotta throw out the straight lines)

Thanks!

With bear or without?
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Tim J.]

Frank Reid wrote:
>> Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
>
> Whats a Denway?
>
> (someones gotta throw out the straight lines)

Thanks!

With bear or without?
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Wolfgang]

"Danl" > wrote in message
...
>
> "bruiser" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
> >
> > bruce h ;-)
> >
>
>
> Wasn't he a quarterback for the Broncos?

Nope, that was John Denver.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"Tim J." > wrote in message
...
> Frank Reid wrote:
> >> Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
> >
> > Whats a Denway?
> >
> > (someones gotta throw out the straight lines)
>
> Thanks!
>
> With bear or without?

Ah! A clue!

Denway is the Chicago Cubs baseball field!

Wolfgang
geographer nonpareil

[Conan the Librarian]

Wolfgang wrote:

> Ah! A clue!
>
> Denway is the Chicago Cubs baseball field!
>
> Wolfgang
> geographer nonpareil

Silly man. Everyone knows that's the Red Sox' park. And it's
spelled "Benway".


Chuck Vance (Dr.)

[riverman]

"Wayne Harrison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tim J." > wrote
>
> > Is Fortenberry unemployed? ;-)
>
> forty is to employment as black holes are to matter.
>
> yfitons
> wayno(and yes, i am certain that some ****ing science geek is going to
> *eviscerate* my ass on that one; but, you know what i mean--right, 40?)
>
>

Umm, so you mean that he has a tremendous amount of employment and nothing
to show for it? Or that jobs just come to him without any noticable effort
on his part? Or that some geek in a wheelchair and a strange electronic
voice theorized that Fortenberry has work, but recently had to change his
theory?

--riverman

(Or did you mean to say that 40 is to employment like trout are to my
flies?)

[Wolfgang]

"Conan the Librarian" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
> > Ah! A clue!
> >
> > Denway is the Chicago Cubs baseball field!
> >
> > Wolfgang
> > geographer nonpareil
>
> Silly man. Everyone knows that's the Red Sox' park. And it's
> spelled "Benway".
>
>
> Chuck Vance (Dr.)

Hm.......

So, taking this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, anonymous
posters are avid baseball fans who delight in possessing
memorabilia........that is to say, they collect Benway balls. O.k.,
that makes sense.

Wolfgang

[GaryM]

GregP > wrote in :

> You can make a list of the posts and ask Google and other
> repositories to remove them. Google, at least in the past,
> would try. Sometimes, as Jonathan Cook said, they'd return,
> so you have to ask again. I had three years' worth of posts
> removed from two groups, but had to ask twice, as have
> several other people I know.

BTW, I am not sure either of how long Google's policy will last. For
example Groups Beta does not appear to honor the no-archive header.

See your test:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.outdoors.fishing.fly/msg/6c76da2e6553c034?dmode=source

Here is the Beta groups interface for those interested:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.outdoors.fishing.fly

[GregP]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:15:58 -0000, GaryM >
wrote:

>
>BTW, I am not sure either of how long Google's policy will last. For
>example Groups Beta does not appear to honor the no-archive header.


Yes. In theory these posts are copyrighted by us and
we should be able to have as much of a say in how
they are used as Disney or BMG. Of course, we would
also have to have a whole bunch of money to throw at
Congressmen to get that backed up :-)

[GregP]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:15:58 -0000, GaryM >
wrote:

>
>BTW, I am not sure either of how long Google's policy will last. For
>example Groups Beta does not appear to honor the no-archive header.


Yes. In theory these posts are copyrighted by us and
we should be able to have as much of a say in how
they are used as Disney or BMG. Of course, we would
also have to have a whole bunch of money to throw at
Congressmen to get that backed up :-)

[Conan the Librarian]

Wolfgang wrote:

> "Conan the Librarian" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Wolfgang wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ah! A clue!
>>>
>>>Denway is the Chicago Cubs baseball field!
>>>
>>>Wolfgang
>>>geographer nonpareil
>>
>> Silly man. Everyone knows that's the Red Sox' park. And it's
>>spelled "Benway".
>>
>>
>> Chuck Vance (Dr.)
>
>
> Hm.......
>
> So, taking this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, anonymous
> posters are avid baseball fans who delight in possessing
> memorabilia........that is to say, they collect Benway balls.

Or (Dr.) Benway balls and Steely Dans.


Chuck Vance (literary allusions'r'us)

[Conan the Librarian]

Wolfgang wrote:

> "Conan the Librarian" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Wolfgang wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ah! A clue!
>>>
>>>Denway is the Chicago Cubs baseball field!
>>>
>>>Wolfgang
>>>geographer nonpareil
>>
>> Silly man. Everyone knows that's the Red Sox' park. And it's
>>spelled "Benway".
>>
>>
>> Chuck Vance (Dr.)
>
>
> Hm.......
>
> So, taking this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, anonymous
> posters are avid baseball fans who delight in possessing
> memorabilia........that is to say, they collect Benway balls.

Or (Dr.) Benway balls and Steely Dans.


Chuck Vance (literary allusions'r'us)

[riverman]

"Jonathan Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anyways, now my "removed" posts are back on google again. That leads
> me to believe that X-No-Archive has no real legal authority, it's only
> a courtesy request. Legally, Usenet posts might be "public domain",
> but you'd have to ask an expert.
>

Good advice. Wolfie?

--riverman

[riverman]

"Jonathan Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anyways, now my "removed" posts are back on google again. That leads
> me to believe that X-No-Archive has no real legal authority, it's only
> a courtesy request. Legally, Usenet posts might be "public domain",
> but you'd have to ask an expert.
>

Good advice. Wolfie?

--riverman

[Ken Fortenberry]

riverman wrote:
> "Jonathan Cook" wrote:
>>... Legally, Usenet posts might be "public domain",
>>but you'd have to ask an expert.
>
> Good advice. Wolfie?

<SPLORK>

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

riverman wrote:
> "Jonathan Cook" wrote:
>>... Legally, Usenet posts might be "public domain",
>>but you'd have to ask an expert.
>
> Good advice. Wolfie?

<SPLORK>

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Wolfgang]

"riverman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jonathan Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Anyways, now my "removed" posts are back on google again. That
leads
> > me to believe that X-No-Archive has no real legal authority, it's
only
> > a courtesy request. Legally, Usenet posts might be "public
domain",
> > but you'd have to ask an expert.
> >
>
> Good advice. Wolfie?

I am unable to comment on this matter at this time as my petition for
guardian ad litem status re: r.o.f.f. is still pending. In the
meantime, Helen Waite is handling all damage claims for those intent
on seeking recompense for unauthorized use of their allegedly
copyrighted materials.

Wolfgang
for D.C. & H.

[Wolfgang]

"riverman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jonathan Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Anyways, now my "removed" posts are back on google again. That
leads
> > me to believe that X-No-Archive has no real legal authority, it's
only
> > a courtesy request. Legally, Usenet posts might be "public
domain",
> > but you'd have to ask an expert.
> >
>
> Good advice. Wolfie?

I am unable to comment on this matter at this time as my petition for
guardian ad litem status re: r.o.f.f. is still pending. In the
meantime, Helen Waite is handling all damage claims for those intent
on seeking recompense for unauthorized use of their allegedly
copyrighted materials.

Wolfgang
for D.C. & H.

[Stan Gula]

GaryM wrote:
>
> BTW, I am not sure either of how long Google's policy will last. For
> example Groups Beta does not appear to honor the no-archive header.
>

Maybe because it's just a Beta?

[Stan Gula]

GaryM wrote:
>
> BTW, I am not sure either of how long Google's policy will last. For
> example Groups Beta does not appear to honor the no-archive header.
>

Maybe because it's just a Beta?

[GaryM]

"Stan Gula" > wrote in news:CW4Zc.708$P46.562
@trndny03:

> Maybe because it's just a Beta?

Actually see J. Cook's message earlier today.

[GaryM]

"Stan Gula" > wrote in news:CW4Zc.708$P46.562
@trndny03:

> Maybe because it's just a Beta?

Actually see J. Cook's message earlier today.

[snakefiddler]

"Mark Bowen" > wrote in message
...
>
> "GregP" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Look at the header info below.from one of my posts of last week.
>
> Thanks! I may just look into this, as I might want to run for POTUS one
day and I
> certainly wouldn't want anything I say from here on out to be used against
me in the
> court of public opinion :~^)
>
> Mark --not that a mild mannered pussy (used in the most gender neutral
sense
> possible) like myself would ever say anything offensive to anyone else!--
>

hmm, neutral pussy.....
is that anything like a tom cat whose had his.....

sorry, never mind ;-)

snake

[snakefiddler]

"Mark Bowen" > wrote in message
...
>
> "GregP" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Look at the header info below.from one of my posts of last week.
>
> Thanks! I may just look into this, as I might want to run for POTUS one
day and I
> certainly wouldn't want anything I say from here on out to be used against
me in the
> court of public opinion :~^)
>
> Mark --not that a mild mannered pussy (used in the most gender neutral
sense
> possible) like myself would ever say anything offensive to anyone else!--
>

hmm, neutral pussy.....
is that anything like a tom cat whose had his.....

sorry, never mind ;-)

snake

[Wolfgang]

"snakefiddler" > wrote in message
...
>
> hmm, neutral pussy.....

Perhaps the strangest and most evocative juxtaposition yet seen on ROFF.

Wolfgang
volumes could be written.......and should be......and probably have been.

[Wolfgang]

"snakefiddler" > wrote in message
...
>
> hmm, neutral pussy.....

Perhaps the strangest and most evocative juxtaposition yet seen on ROFF.

Wolfgang
volumes could be written.......and should be......and probably have been.

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "GaryM" > wrote in message
> > . 3.44...
> > > "Wolfgang" > wrote in
> :
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)
> > >
> > > Everyone knows your real name is an anagram, so fess up Wolfgang, or
> > > should I say, Mr. COWBANE FINE HIGGLES, or is WINNEBAGO FISC HEGEL?
> >
> > Everyone knows that the Snedeker's speak only to the
> Fisc-Hegels........and
> > the Fisc-Hegels speak only to Dog.
> >
> > Gnagflow
>
> I vote for "Wolfgang Von Pussy," although "weasel" also has a ring to it.
>
> Dod

What have anagrams and smearing paint on a piece of canvas got in common?
Not much really......one is an art form and the other is......well, smearing
paint on canvas.

Wolfgang
who's got just about as many ancestors as the next guy.

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "GaryM" > wrote in message
> > . 3.44...
> > > "Wolfgang" > wrote in
> :
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Well......yeah......or use a bogus name. :)
> > >
> > > Everyone knows your real name is an anagram, so fess up Wolfgang, or
> > > should I say, Mr. COWBANE FINE HIGGLES, or is WINNEBAGO FISC HEGEL?
> >
> > Everyone knows that the Snedeker's speak only to the
> Fisc-Hegels........and
> > the Fisc-Hegels speak only to Dog.
> >
> > Gnagflow
>
> I vote for "Wolfgang Von Pussy," although "weasel" also has a ring to it.
>
> Dod

What have anagrams and smearing paint on a piece of canvas got in common?
Not much really......one is an art form and the other is......well, smearing
paint on canvas.

Wolfgang
who's got just about as many ancestors as the next guy.

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Danl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "bruiser" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
> > > >
> > > > bruce h ;-)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Wasn't he a quarterback for the Broncos?
> >
> > Nope, that was John Denver.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> WRONG, AGAIN
> 100% WRONG.
> John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos.
> You are so very wrong on this.
> No scrod for you.
>
> Dave
> Who caught Wolfgang Von Pussy in an Error, a flat out, no excuses ERROR.
> Now will WVP admit he is WRONG on this? Or will he find it necessary to
> weasel out of his ERROR?

Sometimes it's genuinely embarrassing.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Danl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "bruiser" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
> > > >
> > > > bruce h ;-)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Wasn't he a quarterback for the Broncos?
> >
> > Nope, that was John Denver.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> WRONG, AGAIN
> 100% WRONG.
> John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos.
> You are so very wrong on this.
> No scrod for you.
>
> Dave
> Who caught Wolfgang Von Pussy in an Error, a flat out, no excuses ERROR.
> Now will WVP admit he is WRONG on this? Or will he find it necessary to
> weasel out of his ERROR?

Sometimes it's genuinely embarrassing.

Wolfgang

[William Claspy]

On 8/31/04 8:25 PM, in article , "Wolfgang"
> wrote:

>
> "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> hmm, neutral pussy.....
>
> Perhaps the strangest and most evocative juxtaposition yet seen on ROFF.
>
> Wolfgang
> volumes could be written.......and should be......and probably have been.

Why do you taunt me so!

<clickety clickety clickety>

BB

[William Claspy]

On 8/31/04 8:25 PM, in article , "Wolfgang"
> wrote:

>
> "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> hmm, neutral pussy.....
>
> Perhaps the strangest and most evocative juxtaposition yet seen on ROFF.
>
> Wolfgang
> volumes could be written.......and should be......and probably have been.

Why do you taunt me so!

<clickety clickety clickety>

BB

[William Claspy]

On 8/31/04 8:25 PM, in article , "Wolfgang"
> wrote:

>
> "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> hmm, neutral pussy.....
>
> Perhaps the strangest and most evocative juxtaposition yet seen on ROFF.
>
> Wolfgang
> volumes could be written.......and should be......and probably have been.

Why do you taunt me so!

<clickety clickety clickety>

BB

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "David Snedeker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Danl" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "bruiser" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > bruce h ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wasn't he a quarterback for the Broncos?
> > > >
> > > > Nope, that was John Denver.
> > > >
> > > > Wolfgang
> > > >
> > > WRONG, AGAIN
> > > 100% WRONG.
> > > John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos.
> > > You are so very wrong on this.
> > > No scrod for you.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > > Who caught Wolfgang Von Pussy in an Error, a flat out, no excuses
ERROR.
> > > Now will WVP admit he is WRONG on this? Or will he find it necessary
to
> > > weasel out of his ERROR?
> >
> > Sometimes it's genuinely embarrassing.
> >
> > Wolfgang
>
> The point is that you have made a serious ERROR, a MISTAKE, someone has
PUT
> ONE OVER ON YOU. And you are incapable of simply acknowledging your ERROR,
> and the increasingly sloppiness of your word patter. Its not the END of
the
> WORLD- you are simply WRONG, just say it . . .
>
> "John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos."
>
> Go ahead now, you will feel much better, and I think I speak for all of us
> here at "We Are All a Stage for Wolfgang's Life"TM , that we will have so
> very much more respect for you.
>
> You, after all, are our STAR.

Oddly enough (coincidence is perhaps the most powerful and least understood
force in the universe) I've been reading my first ever issue of "Harper's"
for a good part of the evening. Man, they put some WEIRD **** in there!

You would scare them, I think.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "David Snedeker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Danl" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "bruiser" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > bruce h ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wasn't he a quarterback for the Broncos?
> > > >
> > > > Nope, that was John Denver.
> > > >
> > > > Wolfgang
> > > >
> > > WRONG, AGAIN
> > > 100% WRONG.
> > > John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos.
> > > You are so very wrong on this.
> > > No scrod for you.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > > Who caught Wolfgang Von Pussy in an Error, a flat out, no excuses
ERROR.
> > > Now will WVP admit he is WRONG on this? Or will he find it necessary
to
> > > weasel out of his ERROR?
> >
> > Sometimes it's genuinely embarrassing.
> >
> > Wolfgang
>
> The point is that you have made a serious ERROR, a MISTAKE, someone has
PUT
> ONE OVER ON YOU. And you are incapable of simply acknowledging your ERROR,
> and the increasingly sloppiness of your word patter. Its not the END of
the
> WORLD- you are simply WRONG, just say it . . .
>
> "John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos."
>
> Go ahead now, you will feel much better, and I think I speak for all of us
> here at "We Are All a Stage for Wolfgang's Life"TM , that we will have so
> very much more respect for you.
>
> You, after all, are our STAR.

Oddly enough (coincidence is perhaps the most powerful and least understood
force in the universe) I've been reading my first ever issue of "Harper's"
for a good part of the evening. Man, they put some WEIRD **** in there!

You would scare them, I think.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "David Snedeker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Danl" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "bruiser" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > bruce h ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wasn't he a quarterback for the Broncos?
> > > >
> > > > Nope, that was John Denver.
> > > >
> > > > Wolfgang
> > > >
> > > WRONG, AGAIN
> > > 100% WRONG.
> > > John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos.
> > > You are so very wrong on this.
> > > No scrod for you.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > > Who caught Wolfgang Von Pussy in an Error, a flat out, no excuses
ERROR.
> > > Now will WVP admit he is WRONG on this? Or will he find it necessary
to
> > > weasel out of his ERROR?
> >
> > Sometimes it's genuinely embarrassing.
> >
> > Wolfgang
>
> The point is that you have made a serious ERROR, a MISTAKE, someone has
PUT
> ONE OVER ON YOU. And you are incapable of simply acknowledging your ERROR,
> and the increasingly sloppiness of your word patter. Its not the END of
the
> WORLD- you are simply WRONG, just say it . . .
>
> "John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos."
>
> Go ahead now, you will feel much better, and I think I speak for all of us
> here at "We Are All a Stage for Wolfgang's Life"TM , that we will have so
> very much more respect for you.
>
> You, after all, are our STAR.

Oddly enough (coincidence is perhaps the most powerful and least understood
force in the universe) I've been reading my first ever issue of "Harper's"
for a good part of the evening. Man, they put some WEIRD **** in there!

You would scare them, I think.

Wolfgang

[Willi]

David Snedeker wrote:

> you are simply WRONG, just say it . . .
>
> "John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos."


Although Wolfgang IS sometimes wrong, I think you need to reread the
whole thread, Dave.

(Or maybe I don't know where YOU'RE coming from, which wouldn't surprise
me.)

Willi

[Willi]

David Snedeker wrote:

> you are simply WRONG, just say it . . .
>
> "John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos."


Although Wolfgang IS sometimes wrong, I think you need to reread the
whole thread, Dave.

(Or maybe I don't know where YOU'RE coming from, which wouldn't surprise
me.)

Willi

[rw]

David Snedeker wrote:
>
> You, after all, are our STAR.

Can't get anything past him.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

David Snedeker wrote:
>
> You, after all, are our STAR.

Can't get anything past him.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

In article >,
says...
>
>
> David Snedeker wrote:
>
> > you are simply WRONG, just say it . . .
> >
> > "John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos."
>
>
> Although Wolfgang IS sometimes wrong, I think you need to reread the
> whole thread, Dave.
>
> (Or maybe I don't know where YOU'RE coming from, which wouldn't surprise
> me.)

And you should consider yourself lucky.....It's still funny as hell to
watch though. :-)
- Ken

In article >,
says...
>
>
> David Snedeker wrote:
>
> > you are simply WRONG, just say it . . .
> >
> > "John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos."
>
>
> Although Wolfgang IS sometimes wrong, I think you need to reread the
> whole thread, Dave.
>
> (Or maybe I don't know where YOU'RE coming from, which wouldn't surprise
> me.)

And you should consider yourself lucky.....It's still funny as hell to
watch though. :-)
- Ken

[rw]

Willi wrote:

>
>
> David Snedeker wrote:
>
>> you are simply WRONG, just say it . . .
>>
>> "John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos."
>
>
>
> Although Wolfgang IS sometimes wrong, I think you need to reread the
> whole thread, Dave.

Are saying that John Denver WAS the quarterback of the Broncos? :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Willi wrote:

>
>
> David Snedeker wrote:
>
>> you are simply WRONG, just say it . . .
>>
>> "John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos."
>
>
>
> Although Wolfgang IS sometimes wrong, I think you need to reread the
> whole thread, Dave.

Are saying that John Denver WAS the quarterback of the Broncos? :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Kevin Vang]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Danl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "bruiser" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
> > > >
> > > > bruce h ;-)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Wasn't he a quarterback for the Broncos?
> >
> > Nope, that was John Denver.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> WRONG, AGAIN
> 100% WRONG.
> John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos.
> You are so very wrong on this.


Bob Denver was the quarterback for the Broncos.
John Denver played the Skipper on "Gilligan's Island."

hth,
Kevin

[Kevin Vang]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Danl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "bruiser" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
> > > >
> > > > bruce h ;-)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Wasn't he a quarterback for the Broncos?
> >
> > Nope, that was John Denver.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> WRONG, AGAIN
> 100% WRONG.
> John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos.
> You are so very wrong on this.


Bob Denver was the quarterback for the Broncos.
John Denver played the Skipper on "Gilligan's Island."

hth,
Kevin

[Cyli]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:54:43 -0400, "Tim J."
> wrote:

>Frank Reid wrote:
>>> Quick! What's the Capital of Denway?
>>
>> Whats a Denway?
>>
>> (someones gotta throw out the straight lines)
>
>Thanks!
>
>With bear or without?

Laden or unladen?

Or, as we say in manysoda, "Who's on frost?"

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

[Cyli]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:00:14 -0600, rw
> wrote:

>Cyli wrote:
>
>> Cyli
>> r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
>> Often taunted by trout.
>>
>> http://www.visi.com/~cyli
>
>Judging just by your sig, cyli, I would never have thought that you'd be
>so ANAL.


I'm never quite sure which end of the squirrel in the attic I'm
talking to.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

[Cyli]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:00:14 -0600, rw
> wrote:

>Cyli wrote:
>
>> Cyli
>> r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
>> Often taunted by trout.
>>
>> http://www.visi.com/~cyli
>
>Judging just by your sig, cyli, I would never have thought that you'd be
>so ANAL.


I'm never quite sure which end of the squirrel in the attic I'm
talking to.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

[riverman]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Willi" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > David Snedeker wrote:
> >
> > > you are simply WRONG, just say it . . .
> > >
> > > "John Denver was never quarterback of the Broncos."
> >
> >
> > Although Wolfgang IS sometimes wrong, I think you need to reread the
> > whole thread, Dave.
> >
> > (Or maybe I don't know where YOU'RE coming from, which wouldn't surprise
> > me.)
> >
> > Willi
> >
> >
>
> You wouldn't be thinking of that anagram excuse would you? Because
> everything that the boy says fits into that framework. He chooses to see
> his BLUNDER as an anagram. I choose to see it as that, rare as a quark,
> "Wolfgang error."


Geeze, its like someone turned the lights on in the middle of the movie.

--riverman

[Wolfgang]

"William Claspy" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/31/04 8:25 PM, in article , "Wolfgang"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> hmm, neutral pussy.....
> >
> > Perhaps the strangest and most evocative juxtaposition yet seen on ROFF.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> > volumes could be written.......and should be......and probably have
been.
>
> Why do you taunt me so!
>
> <clickety clickety clickety>

You can skip right over Mailer, Miller, Jong, Hemingway, Stein, Steinem,
Nin, Turing, Wilde, Findley, Barnard and Fortenberry. Um........Capote,
maybe?

Wolfgang

[Charlie Choc]

On 1 Sep 2004 05:18:24 GMT, "David Snedeker" > wrote:

> I choose to see it as that, rare as a quark,
>"Wolfgang error."
>
Maybe you meant as hard to detect as a quark? Quarks aren't exactly rare. FWIW
--
Charlie...

[Wayne Harrison]

"Cyli" > wrote
> > wrote:
>



> >
> >Judging just by your sig, cyli, I would never have thought that you'd be
> >so ANAL.
>
>
> I'm never quite sure which end of the squirrel in the attic I'm
> talking to.


hilarious.

yfitons
wayno

[Wayne Harrison]

"Cyli" > wrote
> > wrote:
>



> >
> >Judging just by your sig, cyli, I would never have thought that you'd be
> >so ANAL.
>
>
> I'm never quite sure which end of the squirrel in the attic I'm
> talking to.


hilarious.

yfitons
wayno

[Wolfgang]

"Charlie Choc" > wrote in message
...
> On 1 Sep 2004 05:18:24 GMT, "David Snedeker" >
wrote:
>
> > I choose to see it as that, rare as a quark,
> >"Wolfgang error."
> >
> Maybe you meant as hard to detect as a quark? Quarks aren't exactly rare.
FWIW

Well, in that case the only real resemblance is their shared ability to pass
unnoticed through even the densest objects.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"Charlie Choc" > wrote in message
...
> On 1 Sep 2004 05:18:24 GMT, "David Snedeker" >
wrote:
>
> > I choose to see it as that, rare as a quark,
> >"Wolfgang error."
> >
> Maybe you meant as hard to detect as a quark? Quarks aren't exactly rare.
FWIW

Well, in that case the only real resemblance is their shared ability to pass
unnoticed through even the densest objects.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"Cyli" > wrote in message
...
> I'm never quite sure which end of the squirrel in the attic I'm
> talking to.

Doesn't matter, really. What's important is the ability to determine
which end you're LISTENING to.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"Cyli" > wrote in message
...
> I'm never quite sure which end of the squirrel in the attic I'm
> talking to.

Doesn't matter, really. What's important is the ability to determine
which end you're LISTENING to.

Wolfgang

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:
> "Charlie Choc" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On 1 Sep 2004 05:18:24 GMT, "David Snedeker" >
>
> wrote:
>
>>>I choose to see it as that, rare as a quark,
>>>"Wolfgang error."
>>>
>>
>>Maybe you meant as hard to detect as a quark? Quarks aren't exactly rare.
>
> FWIW
>
> Well, in that case the only real resemblance is their shared ability to pass
> unnoticed through even the densest objects.

Those are neutrinos, not quarks.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang wrote:
> > "Charlie Choc" > wrote in
message
> > ...
> >
> >>On 1 Sep 2004 05:18:24 GMT, "David Snedeker"
>
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>I choose to see it as that, rare as a quark,
> >>>"Wolfgang error."
> >>>
> >>
> >>Maybe you meant as hard to detect as a quark? Quarks aren't
exactly rare.
> >
> > FWIW
> >
> > Well, in that case the only real resemblance is their shared
ability to pass
> > unnoticed through even the densest objects.
>
> Those are neutrinos, not quarks.

Huh? I thought neutrinos was a kind of sheep.

Wolfgang

[Willi]

rw wrote:
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
>> "Charlie Choc" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On 1 Sep 2004 05:18:24 GMT, "David Snedeker" >
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I choose to see it as that, rare as a quark,
>>>> "Wolfgang error."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you meant as hard to detect as a quark? Quarks aren't exactly
>>> rare.
>>
>>
>> FWIW
>>
>> Well, in that case the only real resemblance is their shared ability
>> to pass
>> unnoticed through even the densest objects.
>
>
> Those are neutrinos, not quarks.
>

See Dave?

Willi

[Wolfgang]

"Willi" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> rw wrote:
> > Wolfgang wrote:
> >
> >> "Charlie Choc" > wrote in
message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> On 1 Sep 2004 05:18:24 GMT, "David Snedeker"
>
> >>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I choose to see it as that, rare as a quark,
> >>>> "Wolfgang error."
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Maybe you meant as hard to detect as a quark? Quarks aren't
exactly
> >>> rare.
> >>
> >>
> >> FWIW
> >>
> >> Well, in that case the only real resemblance is their shared
ability
> >> to pass
> >> unnoticed through even the densest objects.
> >
> >
> > Those are neutrinos, not quarks.
> >
>
> See Dave?

Where!?

Wolfgang
dang.......missed him again. :(

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:

> "rw" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>Those are neutrinos, not quarks.
>
>
> Huh? I thought neutrinos was a kind of sheep.

Once again, you are confused. You might be thinking of the quarterback
for the Miami Dolphins.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:

> "rw" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>Those are neutrinos, not quarks.
>
>
> Huh? I thought neutrinos was a kind of sheep.

Once again, you are confused. You might be thinking of the quarterback
for the Miami Dolphins.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
m...
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >>Those are neutrinos, not quarks.
> >
> >
> > Huh? I thought neutrinos was a kind of sheep.
>
> Once again, you are confused. You might be thinking of the
quarterback
> for the Miami Dolphins.

The nice thing about the easily led is that you always know exactly
where they are. :)

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
m...
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >>Those are neutrinos, not quarks.
> >
> >
> > Huh? I thought neutrinos was a kind of sheep.
>
> Once again, you are confused. You might be thinking of the
quarterback
> for the Miami Dolphins.

The nice thing about the easily led is that you always know exactly
where they are. :)

Wolfgang

In article >, gmaddr-
says...
> "David Snedeker" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > Actually, John Denver was a songwriter/performer who wrote
> > "Countryroads." I would have gladly shared that with Wolfgang had
> > he not been so rude, and in denial. He thought John Denver was a
> > quarterback with the Broncos. Now he thinks he read it in
> > Harper's.
> >
>
> The whole thread was messing with names, Denway/Fenway etc. "John
> Denver" was part of that cascade.

Don't confuse Davie, he's onto another great conspiracy. :-)
- Ken

[Charlie Wilson]

"Wolfgang" wrote:
> You can skip right over Mailer, Miller, Jong, Hemingway, Stein, Steinem,
> Nin, Turing, Wilde, Findley, Barnard and Fortenberry. Um........Capote,
> maybe?


Ummm, let me guess. The defensive lineup up for the Denver Broncos?

[Wayne Harrison]

"Jonathan Cook" > wrote

> Anyways, I still think x-no-archive is a courtesy request, not
> legally binding, but hey i'm no lawyer, although i can skip the
> shift key as well as any of 'em...
>
> yfitloe,
>
> jon.

i got it! i got it! it's "your friend in the land of enchantment"!

yfitons
wayno (and some cynics claim lawyers don't know their asses from first base,
let alone new mexico...)

[Wolfgang]

"Charlie Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" wrote:
> > You can skip right over Mailer, Miller, Jong, Hemingway, Stein,
Steinem,
> > Nin, Turing, Wilde, Findley, Barnard and Fortenberry.
Um........Capote,
> > maybe?
>
>
> Ummm, let me guess. The defensive lineup up for the Denver
Broncos?

Well, it WOULD, at last, make the game interesting. :)

Wolfgang
though, if coached by john irving, stevie and kennie would probably be
tight ends.

[Tim J.]

Wayne Harrison wrote:
> "Jonathan Cook" > wrote
>
>> Anyways, I still think x-no-archive is a courtesy request, not
>> legally binding, but hey i'm no lawyer, although i can skip the
>> shift key as well as any of 'em...
>>
>> yfitloe,
>>
>> jon.
>
> i got it! i got it! it's "your friend in the land of
> enchantment"!
>
> yfitons
> wayno (and some cynics claim lawyers don't know their asses from
> first base, let alone new mexico...)

Those claims stand. Us techies figured out that sig hours ago.

--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Tim J.]

Wayne Harrison wrote:
> "Jonathan Cook" > wrote
>
>> Anyways, I still think x-no-archive is a courtesy request, not
>> legally binding, but hey i'm no lawyer, although i can skip the
>> shift key as well as any of 'em...
>>
>> yfitloe,
>>
>> jon.
>
> i got it! i got it! it's "your friend in the land of
> enchantment"!
>
> yfitons
> wayno (and some cynics claim lawyers don't know their asses from
> first base, let alone new mexico...)

Those claims stand. Us techies figured out that sig hours ago.

--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[George Adams]

>From: "Wolfgang"

>Huh? I thought neutrinos was a kind of sheep.

Well I'd be a little sheepish if I had said John Denver was QB of the Broncos.
<G>


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

[George Adams]

>From: "Wolfgang"

>Huh? I thought neutrinos was a kind of sheep.

Well I'd be a little sheepish if I had said John Denver was QB of the Broncos.
<G>


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

[Wolfgang]

"George Adams" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Wolfgang"
>
> >Huh? I thought neutrinos was a kind of sheep.
>
> Well I'd be a little sheepish if I had said John Denver was QB of the
Broncos.
> <G>

And not without good reason.......if you believed it.

Wolfgang
no great expert on popular culture his own self.

[Tim J.]

George Adams wrote:
>> From: "Wolfgang"
>
>> Huh? I thought neutrinos was a kind of sheep.
>
> Well I'd be a little sheepish if I had said John Denver was QB of the
> Broncos. <G>

Speaking of pigs, I'm still waiting to see how all this relates to Kevin
Bacon.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Tim J.]

George Adams wrote:
>> From: "Wolfgang"
>
>> Huh? I thought neutrinos was a kind of sheep.
>
> Well I'd be a little sheepish if I had said John Denver was QB of the
> Broncos. <G>

Speaking of pigs, I'm still waiting to see how all this relates to Kevin
Bacon.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Frank Reid]

>> Well I'd be a little sheepish if I had said John Denver was QB of the
>> Broncos. <G>
>
> Speaking of pigs, I'm still waiting to see how all this relates to Kevin
> Bacon.

Well according to the Oracle of Bacon at Virginia:
(http://www.cs.virginia.edu/oracle/)
John Denver has a Bacon number of 3.
John Denver was in Walking Thunder (1997) with Robert DoQui
Robert DoQui was in Buffalo Bill and the Indians, or Sitting Bull's History
Lesson (1976) with Harvey Keitel
Harvey Keitel was in Imagine New York (2003) with Kevin Bacon

I personally don't hold the "Oracle" as too gud 'cause it can't find Lefty
Kreh.


--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

[Frank Reid]

>> Well I'd be a little sheepish if I had said John Denver was QB of the
>> Broncos. <G>
>
> Speaking of pigs, I'm still waiting to see how all this relates to Kevin
> Bacon.

Well according to the Oracle of Bacon at Virginia:
(http://www.cs.virginia.edu/oracle/)
John Denver has a Bacon number of 3.
John Denver was in Walking Thunder (1997) with Robert DoQui
Robert DoQui was in Buffalo Bill and the Indians, or Sitting Bull's History
Lesson (1976) with Harvey Keitel
Harvey Keitel was in Imagine New York (2003) with Kevin Bacon

I personally don't hold the "Oracle" as too gud 'cause it can't find Lefty
Kreh.


--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

[snakefiddler]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Claspy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 8/31/04 8:25 PM, in article , "Wolfgang"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >>
> > >> hmm, neutral pussy.....
> > >
> > > Perhaps the strangest and most evocative juxtaposition yet seen on
ROFF.
> > >
> > > Wolfgang
> > > volumes could be written.......and should be......and probably have
> been.
> >
> > Why do you taunt me so!
> >
> > <clickety clickety clickety>
>
> You can skip right over Mailer, Miller, Jong, Hemingway, Stein, Steinem,
> Nin, Turing, Wilde, Findley, Barnard and Fortenberry. Um........Capote,
> maybe?
>
> Wolfgang
>
>

ooh, nin- now that's my girl ;-)
snake

[snakefiddler]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Claspy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 8/31/04 8:25 PM, in article , "Wolfgang"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >>
> > >> hmm, neutral pussy.....
> > >
> > > Perhaps the strangest and most evocative juxtaposition yet seen on
ROFF.
> > >
> > > Wolfgang
> > > volumes could be written.......and should be......and probably have
> been.
> >
> > Why do you taunt me so!
> >
> > <clickety clickety clickety>
>
> You can skip right over Mailer, Miller, Jong, Hemingway, Stein, Steinem,
> Nin, Turing, Wilde, Findley, Barnard and Fortenberry. Um........Capote,
> maybe?
>
> Wolfgang
>
>

ooh, nin- now that's my girl ;-)
snake

[Wolfgang]

"snakefiddler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...

> >
> > You can skip right over Mailer, Miller, Jong, Hemingway, Stein, Steinem,
> > Nin, Turing, Wilde, Findley, Barnard and Fortenberry. Um........Capote,
> > maybe?
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> >
>
> ooh, nin- now that's my girl ;-)
> snake

Well, if one has read Nin at all, another probably need not ask whether one
has read "Delta of Venus". :)

Wolfgang
hey stevie!.....hey kennie!.....you should check it out......it's all about
pu.......um.......well, never mind.

[Wolfgang]

"snakefiddler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...

> >
> > You can skip right over Mailer, Miller, Jong, Hemingway, Stein, Steinem,
> > Nin, Turing, Wilde, Findley, Barnard and Fortenberry. Um........Capote,
> > maybe?
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> >
>
> ooh, nin- now that's my girl ;-)
> snake

Well, if one has read Nin at all, another probably need not ask whether one
has read "Delta of Venus". :)

Wolfgang
hey stevie!.....hey kennie!.....you should check it out......it's all about
pu.......um.......well, never mind.

[Jeff Miller]

rw wrote:


>
> Those are neutrinos, not quarks.
>

don't you mean "neuticles"?

[Jeff Miller]

rw wrote:


>
> Those are neutrinos, not quarks.
>

don't you mean "neuticles"?

[Jeff Miller]

wrote:

>
>
> Don't confuse Davie, he's onto another great conspiracy. :-)
> - Ken

that's undeniably funny... scored high on my chuckle meter anyway.

jeff

[Jeff Miller]

wrote:

>
>
> Don't confuse Davie, he's onto another great conspiracy. :-)
> - Ken

that's undeniably funny... scored high on my chuckle meter anyway.

jeff

[Charlie Choc]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:13:46 -0400, Jeff Miller >
wrote:

>
>
>rw wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Those are neutrinos, not quarks.
>>
>
>don't you mean "neuticles"?

It always has to be about 40, doesn't it.
--
Charlie...

[Charlie Choc]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:13:46 -0400, Jeff Miller >
wrote:

>
>
>rw wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Those are neutrinos, not quarks.
>>
>
>don't you mean "neuticles"?

It always has to be about 40, doesn't it.
--
Charlie...

[snakefiddler]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > >
> > > You can skip right over Mailer, Miller, Jong, Hemingway, Stein,
Steinem,
> > > Nin, Turing, Wilde, Findley, Barnard and Fortenberry.
Um........Capote,
> > > maybe?
> > >
> > > Wolfgang
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ooh, nin- now that's my girl ;-)
> > snake
>
> Well, if one has read Nin at all, another probably need not ask whether
one
> has read "Delta of Venus". :)


"one's" poor copy, (which was purchased back in the late seventies), has
been so *ravished*, (how's that for an appropraite reference ;-)?), that
"one" cannot pick it up without some of the pages falling out.
i continue to work on her diary piece by peice......
>
> Wolfgang
> hey stevie!.....hey kennie!.....you should check it out......


>it's all about
> pu......


nah, that book, i would argue, makes a strong feminist statement, and is a
work that reflects the unapologetic shedding of social sexual conventions
assigned to women. some folks, however, may have trouble appreciating it in
it's deeper context.

my concern is that some folks are un-likely to see it as anything more than
a collection of penthouse letters.

>it's all about
> pu......

ah, wolfie- i have a feeling you know it is about much more than that, (see
the above statement)

>.um.......well, never mind.

o.k.


snake ;-)
>

[snakefiddler]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > >
> > > You can skip right over Mailer, Miller, Jong, Hemingway, Stein,
Steinem,
> > > Nin, Turing, Wilde, Findley, Barnard and Fortenberry.
Um........Capote,
> > > maybe?
> > >
> > > Wolfgang
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ooh, nin- now that's my girl ;-)
> > snake
>
> Well, if one has read Nin at all, another probably need not ask whether
one
> has read "Delta of Venus". :)


"one's" poor copy, (which was purchased back in the late seventies), has
been so *ravished*, (how's that for an appropraite reference ;-)?), that
"one" cannot pick it up without some of the pages falling out.
i continue to work on her diary piece by peice......
>
> Wolfgang
> hey stevie!.....hey kennie!.....you should check it out......


>it's all about
> pu......


nah, that book, i would argue, makes a strong feminist statement, and is a
work that reflects the unapologetic shedding of social sexual conventions
assigned to women. some folks, however, may have trouble appreciating it in
it's deeper context.

my concern is that some folks are un-likely to see it as anything more than
a collection of penthouse letters.

>it's all about
> pu......

ah, wolfie- i have a feeling you know it is about much more than that, (see
the above statement)

>.um.......well, never mind.

o.k.


snake ;-)
>

[Wolfgang]

"snakefiddler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >

> > Well, if one has read Nin at all, another probably need not ask
whether
> one
> > has read "Delta of Venus". :)
>
>
> "one's" poor copy, (which was purchased back in the late seventies),
has
> been so *ravished*, (how's that for an appropraite reference ;-)?),
that
> "one" cannot pick it up without some of the pages falling out.
> i continue to work on her diary piece by peice......
> >
> > Wolfgang
> > hey stevie!.....hey kennie!.....you should check it out......
>
>
> >it's all about
> > pu......
>
>
> nah, that book, i would argue, makes a strong feminist statement,
and is a
> work that reflects the unapologetic shedding of social sexual
conventions
> assigned to women. some folks, however, may have trouble
appreciating it in
> it's deeper context.
>
> my concern is that some folks are un-likely to see it as anything
more than
> a collection of penthouse letters.
>
> >it's all about
> > pu......
>
> ah, wolfie- i have a feeling you know it is about much more than
that, (see
> the above statement)

It's been a long time since I picked it up.....I would say "read it",
except that I'm pretty sure I never finished. Judged by today's
standards and in light of what we know about Nin, "Delta of Venus"
certainly COULD be taken as a feminist statement. But, if memory
serves, Nin had no such thing in mind in writing it....or, at least
not overtly. "Delta of Venus" is actually a collection of individual
pieces written over a more or less protracted period......as much as a
couple of years, perhaps? Nin wrote them....rather unwillingly....as
bits of erotica for a private "patron" just for the money. The
customer repeatedly suggested that she (and, I think, other
contributors as well) leave out the philosophizing and poetics, and
just get down to the nitty gritty. The more lurid bits were
deliberately written over the top as a sort of protest cum
resignation. The customer liked it.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"snakefiddler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >

> > Well, if one has read Nin at all, another probably need not ask
whether
> one
> > has read "Delta of Venus". :)
>
>
> "one's" poor copy, (which was purchased back in the late seventies),
has
> been so *ravished*, (how's that for an appropraite reference ;-)?),
that
> "one" cannot pick it up without some of the pages falling out.
> i continue to work on her diary piece by peice......
> >
> > Wolfgang
> > hey stevie!.....hey kennie!.....you should check it out......
>
>
> >it's all about
> > pu......
>
>
> nah, that book, i would argue, makes a strong feminist statement,
and is a
> work that reflects the unapologetic shedding of social sexual
conventions
> assigned to women. some folks, however, may have trouble
appreciating it in
> it's deeper context.
>
> my concern is that some folks are un-likely to see it as anything
more than
> a collection of penthouse letters.
>
> >it's all about
> > pu......
>
> ah, wolfie- i have a feeling you know it is about much more than
that, (see
> the above statement)

It's been a long time since I picked it up.....I would say "read it",
except that I'm pretty sure I never finished. Judged by today's
standards and in light of what we know about Nin, "Delta of Venus"
certainly COULD be taken as a feminist statement. But, if memory
serves, Nin had no such thing in mind in writing it....or, at least
not overtly. "Delta of Venus" is actually a collection of individual
pieces written over a more or less protracted period......as much as a
couple of years, perhaps? Nin wrote them....rather unwillingly....as
bits of erotica for a private "patron" just for the money. The
customer repeatedly suggested that she (and, I think, other
contributors as well) leave out the philosophizing and poetics, and
just get down to the nitty gritty. The more lurid bits were
deliberately written over the top as a sort of protest cum
resignation. The customer liked it.

Wolfgang

[snakefiddler]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
>
> > > Well, if one has read Nin at all, another probably need not ask
> whether
> > one
> > > has read "Delta of Venus". :)
> >
> >
> > "one's" poor copy, (which was purchased back in the late seventies),
> has
> > been so *ravished*, (how's that for an appropraite reference ;-)?),
> that
> > "one" cannot pick it up without some of the pages falling out.
> > i continue to work on her diary piece by peice......
> > >
> > > Wolfgang
> > > hey stevie!.....hey kennie!.....you should check it out......
> >
> >
> > >it's all about
> > > pu......
> >
> >
> > nah, that book, i would argue, makes a strong feminist statement,
> and is a
> > work that reflects the unapologetic shedding of social sexual
> conventions
> > assigned to women. some folks, however, may have trouble
> appreciating it in
> > it's deeper context.
> >
> > my concern is that some folks are un-likely to see it as anything
> more than
> > a collection of penthouse letters.
> >
> > >it's all about
> > > pu......
> >
> > ah, wolfie- i have a feeling you know it is about much more than
> that, (see
> > the above statement)
>
> It's been a long time since I picked it up.....I would say "read it",
> except that I'm pretty sure I never finished. Judged by today's
> standards and in light of what we know about Nin, "Delta of Venus"
> certainly COULD be taken as a feminist statement. But, if memory
> serves, Nin had no such thing in mind in writing it....or, at least
> not overtly. "Delta of Venus" is actually a collection of individual
> pieces written over a more or less protracted period......as much as a
> couple of years, perhaps? Nin wrote them....rather unwillingly....as
> bits of erotica for a private "patron" just for the money. The
> customer repeatedly suggested that she (and, I think, other
> contributors as well) leave out the philosophizing and poetics, and
> just get down to the nitty gritty.

The more lurid bits were
> deliberately written over the top as a sort of protest cum
> resignation.


a little passive agressive behavior, maybe?


>The customer liked it.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>

right you are- they *were* written specifically at the request of a patron.
nin was, as is evidenced by her unconventional lifestyle, an iconoclastic ,
(to borrow a word from the good counselor in the piedmont <g>), figure, and
i think it is difficult for an author to write without exposing his or her
own experiences, attitudes, biases, etc., however deliberate or
un-deliberate.
and in spite of her patron's requests, she still managed to bring to the
work wonderful creativity, and imagry. the poetics lie therein.

as for the customer liking it- who wouldn't ;-)

snake

[Jonathan Cook]

"Wayne Harrison" > wrote in message >...

> yfitons
> wayno

Honestly, I didn't know what your's meant for months, maybe years.

Guess I'm not cut out to be a lawyer after all :-)

Jon.

[Jonathan Cook]

"Wayne Harrison" > wrote in message >...

> yfitons
> wayno

Honestly, I didn't know what your's meant for months, maybe years.

Guess I'm not cut out to be a lawyer after all :-)

Jon.

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Wolfgang wrote:
> > > > "Charlie Choc" > wrote in
> > message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >>On 1 Sep 2004 05:18:24 GMT, "David Snedeker"
> > >
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>>I choose to see it as that, rare as a quark,
> > > >>>"Wolfgang error."
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>Maybe you meant as hard to detect as a quark? Quarks aren't
> > exactly rare.
> > > >
> > > > FWIW
> > > >
> > > > Well, in that case the only real resemblance is their shared
> > ability to pass
> > > > unnoticed through even the densest objects.
> > >
> > > Those are neutrinos, not quarks.
> >
> > Huh? I thought neutrinos was a kind of sheep.
> >
>
> WRONG, once again you are WRONG.
> Neutrinos are not a type (sic) of sheep.
> You are simply WRONG.

Hm......you don't know what that little "(sic)" thingy means, do you?
:)

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Wolfgang wrote:
> > > > "Charlie Choc" > wrote in
> > message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >>On 1 Sep 2004 05:18:24 GMT, "David Snedeker"
> > >
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>>I choose to see it as that, rare as a quark,
> > > >>>"Wolfgang error."
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>Maybe you meant as hard to detect as a quark? Quarks aren't
> > exactly rare.
> > > >
> > > > FWIW
> > > >
> > > > Well, in that case the only real resemblance is their shared
> > ability to pass
> > > > unnoticed through even the densest objects.
> > >
> > > Those are neutrinos, not quarks.
> >
> > Huh? I thought neutrinos was a kind of sheep.
> >
>
> WRONG, once again you are WRONG.
> Neutrinos are not a type (sic) of sheep.
> You are simply WRONG.

Hm......you don't know what that little "(sic)" thingy means, do you?
:)

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Wolfgang wrote:
> > > > "Charlie Choc" > wrote in
> > message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >>On 1 Sep 2004 05:18:24 GMT, "David Snedeker"
> > >
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>>I choose to see it as that, rare as a quark,
> > > >>>"Wolfgang error."
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>Maybe you meant as hard to detect as a quark? Quarks aren't
> > exactly rare.
> > > >
> > > > FWIW
> > > >
> > > > Well, in that case the only real resemblance is their shared
> > ability to pass
> > > > unnoticed through even the densest objects.
> > >
> > > Those are neutrinos, not quarks.
> >
> > Huh? I thought neutrinos was a kind of sheep.
> >
>
> WRONG, once again you are WRONG.
> Neutrinos are not a type (sic) of sheep.
> You are simply WRONG.

Hm......you don't know what that little "(sic)" thingy means, do you?
:)

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>


> > Hm......you don't know what that little "(sic)" thingy means, do you?
> > :)
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
>
> Does't it mean "stick it cunard?"

Nope. Guess again.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>


> > Hm......you don't know what that little "(sic)" thingy means, do you?
> > :)
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
>
> Does't it mean "stick it cunard?"

Nope. Guess again.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"snakefiddler" > wrote in message
...
>
> ...they *were* written specifically at the request of a patron.
> nin was, as is evidenced by her unconventional lifestyle, an iconoclastic
,
> (to borrow a word from the good counselor in the piedmont <g>), figure,
and
> i think it is difficult for an author to write without exposing his or her
> own experiences, attitudes, biases, etc., however deliberate or
> un-deliberate.
> and in spite of her patron's requests, she still managed to bring to the
> work wonderful creativity, and imagry. the poetics lie therein.

I don't know enough about Anais Nin to even speculate about how much of
herself she injected (or allowed to leak) into her work. However, your
larger point is taken and whatever I, or anyone else, think of it we have to
proceed on the assumption that it's true or lit crit dies and with it we all
go the way of the Great Auk. :)

> as for the customer liking it- who wouldn't ;-)

Liars......mostly.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"snakefiddler" > wrote in message
...
>
> ...they *were* written specifically at the request of a patron.
> nin was, as is evidenced by her unconventional lifestyle, an iconoclastic
,
> (to borrow a word from the good counselor in the piedmont <g>), figure,
and
> i think it is difficult for an author to write without exposing his or her
> own experiences, attitudes, biases, etc., however deliberate or
> un-deliberate.
> and in spite of her patron's requests, she still managed to bring to the
> work wonderful creativity, and imagry. the poetics lie therein.

I don't know enough about Anais Nin to even speculate about how much of
herself she injected (or allowed to leak) into her work. However, your
larger point is taken and whatever I, or anyone else, think of it we have to
proceed on the assumption that it's true or lit crit dies and with it we all
go the way of the Great Auk. :)

> as for the customer liking it- who wouldn't ;-)

Liars......mostly.

Wolfgang

[snakefiddler]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > ...they *were* written specifically at the request of a patron.
> > nin was, as is evidenced by her unconventional lifestyle, an
iconoclastic
> ,
> > (to borrow a word from the good counselor in the piedmont <g>), figure,
> and
> > i think it is difficult for an author to write without exposing his or
her
> > own experiences, attitudes, biases, etc., however deliberate or
> > un-deliberate.
> > and in spite of her patron's requests, she still managed to bring to the
> > work wonderful creativity, and imagry. the poetics lie therein.
>
> I don't know enough about Anais Nin to even speculate about how much of
> herself she injected (or allowed to leak) into her work. However, your
> larger point is taken and whatever I, or anyone else, think of it we have
to
> proceed on the assumption that it's true or lit crit dies and with it we
all
> go the way of the Great Auk. :)



very nicely said........


>
> > as for the customer liking it- who wouldn't ;-)
>
> Liars......mostly.


<LOL>

snake ;-)
>
> Wolfgang
>
>

[snakefiddler]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > ...they *were* written specifically at the request of a patron.
> > nin was, as is evidenced by her unconventional lifestyle, an
iconoclastic
> ,
> > (to borrow a word from the good counselor in the piedmont <g>), figure,
> and
> > i think it is difficult for an author to write without exposing his or
her
> > own experiences, attitudes, biases, etc., however deliberate or
> > un-deliberate.
> > and in spite of her patron's requests, she still managed to bring to the
> > work wonderful creativity, and imagry. the poetics lie therein.
>
> I don't know enough about Anais Nin to even speculate about how much of
> herself she injected (or allowed to leak) into her work. However, your
> larger point is taken and whatever I, or anyone else, think of it we have
to
> proceed on the assumption that it's true or lit crit dies and with it we
all
> go the way of the Great Auk. :)



very nicely said........


>
> > as for the customer liking it- who wouldn't ;-)
>
> Liars......mostly.


<LOL>

snake ;-)
>
> Wolfgang
>
>

[snakefiddler]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > ...they *were* written specifically at the request of a patron.
> > nin was, as is evidenced by her unconventional lifestyle, an
iconoclastic
> ,
> > (to borrow a word from the good counselor in the piedmont <g>), figure,
> and
> > i think it is difficult for an author to write without exposing his or
her
> > own experiences, attitudes, biases, etc., however deliberate or
> > un-deliberate.
> > and in spite of her patron's requests, she still managed to bring to the
> > work wonderful creativity, and imagry. the poetics lie therein.
>
> I don't know enough about Anais Nin to even speculate about how much of
> herself she injected (or allowed to leak) into her work. However, your
> larger point is taken and whatever I, or anyone else, think of it we have
to
> proceed on the assumption that it's true or lit crit dies and with it we
all
> go the way of the Great Auk. :)



very nicely said........


>
> > as for the customer liking it- who wouldn't ;-)
>
> Liars......mostly.


<LOL>

snake ;-)
>
> Wolfgang
>
>

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "David Snedeker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > Hm......you don't know what that little "(sic)" thingy means, do
you?
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > Wolfgang
> > > >
> > >
> > > Does't it mean "stick it cunard?"
> >
> > Nope. Guess again.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
>
> Email to Self:
> *Take a ****
> *Walk 2 miles
> *Glaze city painting
> ***** with Wolfgangs mind
> *Laugh like hell

Yeah (sic), it will hardly (sic) have escaped anyone's notice that (sic)
you've done it to me again.

Wolfgang
but then, you already knew that (sic) (sic). :)

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "David Snedeker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > Hm......you don't know what that little "(sic)" thingy means, do
you?
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > Wolfgang
> > > >
> > >
> > > Does't it mean "stick it cunard?"
> >
> > Nope. Guess again.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
>
> Email to Self:
> *Take a ****
> *Walk 2 miles
> *Glaze city painting
> ***** with Wolfgangs mind
> *Laugh like hell

Yeah (sic), it will hardly (sic) have escaped anyone's notice that (sic)
you've done it to me again.

Wolfgang
but then, you already knew that (sic) (sic). :)

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "David Snedeker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > Hm......you don't know what that little "(sic)" thingy means, do
you?
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > Wolfgang
> > > >
> > >
> > > Does't it mean "stick it cunard?"
> >
> > Nope. Guess again.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
>
> Email to Self:
> *Take a ****
> *Walk 2 miles
> *Glaze city painting
> ***** with Wolfgangs mind
> *Laugh like hell

Yeah (sic), it will hardly (sic) have escaped anyone's notice that (sic)
you've done it to me again.

Wolfgang
but then, you already knew that (sic) (sic). :)

[Scott Seidman]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in :

> Wolfgang
> but then, you already knew that (sic) (sic). :)
>
>

That's a nasty case of the siccups you've got there.

Scott

[Scott Seidman]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in :

> Wolfgang
> but then, you already knew that (sic) (sic). :)
>
>

That's a nasty case of the siccups you've got there.

Scott

[Wolfgang]

"Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in :
>
> > Wolfgang
> > but then, you already knew that (sic) (sic). :)
> >
> >
>
> That's a nasty case of the siccups you've got there.

I'd have bet the entire collection of shiny new nickels that I'd see that
word before the end of the day. :)

Wolfgang
and I'd have been WRITE! (sic)

[Wolfgang]

"Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in :
>
> > Wolfgang
> > but then, you already knew that (sic) (sic). :)
> >
> >
>
> That's a nasty case of the siccups you've got there.

I'd have bet the entire collection of shiny new nickels that I'd see that
word before the end of the day. :)

Wolfgang
and I'd have been WRITE! (sic)