 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:59:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2008 16:22:42 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:57:33 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:34:04 -0600, Mike Raiford
>>> <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Incoming! Duck!
>>>>>
>>>>> Duck? Where!
>>>>
>>>>Over there!
>>>
>>>
>>> BANG!
>>>
>>> (I was expecting WABBITS! ;)
>>
>>And we've reached the conclusion....or have we?
>>
>>
> "Frankly my dear I don't give a Damn"
Because as it happens, we didn't reach a conclusion. Wabbit.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17 Dec 2008 18:07:44 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>>>> Incoming! Duck!
>>>>>
>>>>> Duck? Where!
>>>>
>>>> Over there!
>>>
>>>There?
>>>
>>>
>> Where?
>
>Where you said "over there!".
>
That was then ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17 Dec 2008 18:08:09 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incoming! Duck!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Duck? Where!
>>>>>
>>>>>Over there!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BANG!
>>>>
>>>> (I was expecting WABBITS! ;)
>>>
>>>And we've reached the conclusion....or have we?
>>>
>>>
>> "Frankly my dear I don't give a Damn"
>
>Because as it happens, we didn't reach a conclusion. Wabbit.
>
Does your mother sew?
Well get her to stitch this!
Wa Wa WABBITS!
(Am I the only one that's read "Gladiators at law"?)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2008 16:21:42 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:34:04 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Incoming! Duck!
>>>> Duck? Where!
>>> Over there!
>> There?
>>
>
> Where?
>
Neither here, nor there ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:35:19 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Neither here, nor there ...
Then it is of no consequence either one way of the other. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Then it is of no consequence either one way of the other. ;)
Depends on whether the cat is alive.
Of course, if the act of observing the cat kills it ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:55:58 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> Then it is of no consequence either one way of the other. ;)
>
>Depends on whether the cat is alive.
>Of course, if the act of observing the cat kills it ...
But if the cat is dead will observing it make it live again?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> But if the cat is dead will observing it make it live again?
You can never know that answer.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:09:27 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> But if the cat is dead will observing it make it live again?
>
>You can never know that answer.
Why?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:09:27 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> But if the cat is dead will observing it make it live again?
>> You can never know that answer.
>
> Why?
Because ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
