"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:49402f47$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> "Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:49401a44$1@news.povray.org...
>>> St. wrote:
>>>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
>>>> news:49400689$1@news.povray.org...
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:22:43 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:53:02 -0600, Mike Raiford
>>>>>>> <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2008 12:00:43 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:34:19 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Who still hasn't gotten in the last word. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No?
>>>>>>>>>> No. :-)
>>>>>>>>> No!
>>>>>>>> Umm.. Yes? I can has last word?
>>>>>>> All right then, since you ask so prettily
>>>>>> Awwe, thanks!
>>>>> No!  I forbid it! :-)
>>>>    Could you please stop shouting, I'm hunting wabbits too.  >:o(
>>>>
>>> Yeah.. so it ends ... HERE.
>>>
>>> Hah! See that? That's me getting the last word! Hah! haha!
>>
>>    Lol, you gotta be kiddin' mate... I have the patience of a....
>>
>
> No, no kidding. See? I did it again!

   Bu88er1t... sunk  ...again.

   ~Steve~

>
> -- 
> ~Mike

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:494031b0$1@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:18:32 +0000, St. wrote:
>
>>    Could you please stop shouting, I'm hunting wabbits too.  >:o(
>
> But it's duck season! :-)

   Yeah, yeah. Heard it all before...

  Mate, you've been misinformed for years it seems - it's most definately 
Wabbit season. Please do a Google search on 'Elmer Fudd'.

   Humph...

    ~Steve~


>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:494031c3$1@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:34:49 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> Yeah.. so it ends ... HERE.
>>
>> Hah! See that? That's me getting the last word! Hah! haha!
>
> No it isn't.  This ----> is.


  No, my post at 23:42 is.

Post a reply to this message

**Whispers** "Zymosans"

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
> news:494031c3$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:34:49 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah.. so it ends ... HERE.
>>>
>>> Hah! See that? That's me getting the last word! Hah! haha!
>> No it isn't.  This ----> is.
> 
> 
>   No, my post at 23:42 is.
> 

Try again :P

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> St. wrote:
>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
>> news:494031c3$1@news.povray.org...
>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:34:49 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah.. so it ends ... HERE.
>>>>
>>>> Hah! See that? That's me getting the last word! Hah! haha!
>>> No it isn't.  This ----> is.
>>
>>
>>   No, my post at 23:42 is.
>>
> 
> Try again :P
> 


I found a source of wabbits.

http://tinyurl.com/5szayh

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:

> I found a source of wabbits.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/5szayh

Kill the wabbit!

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

"Charles C" <"nospam a nospam.com"> wrote in message 
news:4940b4a0@news.povray.org...
> **Whispers** "Zymosans"

  Ah, ok, I had to Google that one and I got: "an insoluble largely 
polysaccharide fraction of yeast cell walls".

    ???   0.0

   ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:42:10 +0000, St. wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:494031c3$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:34:49 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah.. so it ends ... HERE.
>>>
>>> Hah! See that? That's me getting the last word! Hah! haha!
>>
>> No it isn't.  This ----> is.
> 
> 
>   No, my post at 23:42 is.

No, this one is. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:28:52 +0000, St. wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:494031b0$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:18:32 +0000, St. wrote:
>>
>>>    Could you please stop shouting, I'm hunting wabbits too.  >:o(
>>
>> But it's duck season! :-)
> 
>    Yeah, yeah. Heard it all before...
> 
>   Mate, you've been misinformed for years it seems - it's most
>   definately
> Wabbit season. Please do a Google search on 'Elmer Fudd'.

I did, and it was suggested that it is in fact Elmer season.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:49418a63$1@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:28:52 +0000, St. wrote:
>
>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
>> news:494031b0$1@news.povray.org...
>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:18:32 +0000, St. wrote:
>>>
>>>>    Could you please stop shouting, I'm hunting wabbits too.  >:o(
>>>
>>> But it's duck season! :-)
>>
>>    Yeah, yeah. Heard it all before...
>>
>>   Mate, you've been misinformed for years it seems - it's most
>>   definately
>> Wabbit season. Please do a Google search on 'Elmer Fudd'.
>
> I did, and it was suggested that it is in fact Elmer season.  :-)

     Well, that stopped me dead in my tracks... Did you know my real name is 
Elmer?

        ~Elmer~ (See?)


>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:
> I'm hunting wabbits

http://tinyurl.com/5szayh

Post a reply to this message

On 10 Dec 2008 13:11:55 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:06:04 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 9 Dec 2008 12:01:45 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Interesting, I'll have to check those out.  But you don't like Atkinson?
>>>Why?
>> 
>> You should especially "I, Claudius"
>
>I'll add that to my list. :-)  My wife will be happy, I don't doubt.

As long as you don't compare her to Livia :)

>> I find him more embarrassing than funny and there is another reason that
>> I won't go into ^_^
>
>Oh?  Now why won't you go into it? ;-)
>

Guess? :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:22:25 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:

>
>     Well, that stopped me dead in my tracks... 

Note the date ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message 
news:jbg5k4h0faj2oqbsar4jm116fa630dnnfo@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:22:25 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>>
>>     Well, that stopped me dead in my tracks...
>
> Note the date ;)

  It IS wabbit season? Or duck season?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:00:38 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:

>
>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message 
>news:jbg5k4h0faj2oqbsar4jm116fa630dnnfo@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:22:25 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>     Well, that stopped me dead in my tracks...
>>
>> Note the date ;)
>
>  It IS wabbit season? Or duck season?


It depends if you want to front up to a gang of pre-adolescent girls with broken
bottles? 

Hint (again!) Pohl and Kornbluth's Gladiators-at-law

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:22:25 +0000, St. wrote:

>      Well, that stopped me dead in my tracks... Did you know my real
>      name is
> Elmer?

Not completely dead in your tracks, obviously, you still were trying to 
get the last word in. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12 Dec 2008 16:34:30 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:22:25 +0000, St. wrote:
>
>>      Well, that stopped me dead in my tracks... Did you know my real
>>      name is
>> Elmer?
>
>Not completely dead in your tracks, obviously, you still were trying to 
>get the last word in. :-)
>

No he wasn't, I was ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message 
news:gpo5k4p39nvv01p1a9ogr456pcl3mgjogc@4ax.com...
> On 12 Dec 2008 16:34:30 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:22:25 +0000, St. wrote:
>>
>>>      Well, that stopped me dead in my tracks... Did you know my real
>>>      name is
>>> Elmer?
>>
>>Not completely dead in your tracks, obviously, you still were trying to
>>get the last word in. :-)
>>
>
> No he wasn't, I was ;)

     You did... erm, but not now...  ;)


> -- 
>
> Regards
>     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:49:22 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:

>
>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message 
>news:gpo5k4p39nvv01p1a9ogr456pcl3mgjogc@4ax.com...
>> On 12 Dec 2008 16:34:30 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:22:25 +0000, St. wrote:
>>>
>>>>      Well, that stopped me dead in my tracks... Did you know my real
>>>>      name is
>>>> Elmer?
>>>
>>>Not completely dead in your tracks, obviously, you still were trying to
>>>get the last word in. :-)
>>>
>>
>> No he wasn't, I was ;)
>
>     You did... erm, but not now...  ;)
>

You are right, you know. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message 
news:pf57k45mnf9puudgs7c3q9ad5c2l64jvhi@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:49:22 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
>>news:gpo5k4p39nvv01p1a9ogr456pcl3mgjogc@4ax.com...
>>> On 12 Dec 2008 16:34:30 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:22:25 +0000, St. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>      Well, that stopped me dead in my tracks... Did you know my real
>>>>>      name is
>>>>> Elmer?
>>>>
>>>>Not completely dead in your tracks, obviously, you still were trying to
>>>>get the last word in. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> No he wasn't, I was ;)
>>
>>     You did... erm, but not now...  ;)
>>
>
> You are right, you know.

   Lol, I'm never right!  ;)



> -- 
>
> Regards
>     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:11:21 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:

>
>   Lol, I'm never right!  ;)

If you aren't Steve Wright, who are you?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message 
news:g567k4le3h2np1o8n83kjbt2ivd1g18el6@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:11:21 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>>
>>   Lol, I'm never right!  ;)
>
> If you aren't Steve Wright, who are you?

      Elmer!


> -- 
>
> Regards
>     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

>    Lol, I'm never right!  ;)
> 

You're left?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:18:57 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 12 Dec 2008 16:34:30 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:22:25 +0000, St. wrote:
>>
>>>      Well, that stopped me dead in my tracks... Did you know my real
>>>      name is
>>> Elmer?
>>
>>Not completely dead in your tracks, obviously, you still were trying to
>>get the last word in. :-)
>>
>>
> No he wasn't, I was ;)

Well, you still haven't succeeded. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 15 Dec 2008 14:23:02 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:18:57 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 12 Dec 2008 16:34:30 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:22:25 +0000, St. wrote:
>>>
>>>>      Well, that stopped me dead in my tracks... Did you know my real
>>>>      name is
>>>> Elmer?
>>>
>>>Not completely dead in your tracks, obviously, you still were trying to
>>>get the last word in. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> No he wasn't, I was ;)
>
>Well, you still haven't succeeded. ;-)
>

That's a shame :(
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:14:45 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 15 Dec 2008 14:23:02 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:18:57 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 Dec 2008 16:34:30 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:22:25 +0000, St. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>      Well, that stopped me dead in my tracks... Did you know my real
>>>>>      name is
>>>>> Elmer?
>>>>
>>>>Not completely dead in your tracks, obviously, you still were trying
>>>>to get the last word in. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No he wasn't, I was ;)
>>
>>Well, you still haven't succeeded. ;-)
>>
>>
> That's a shame :(

Maybe for you. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 16 Dec 2008 21:30:23 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> That's a shame :(
>
>Maybe for you. ;-)

Indeed!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:58:59 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 16 Dec 2008 21:30:23 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> That's a shame :(
>>
>>Maybe for you. ;-)
> 
> Indeed!

And yet here we still are. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 17 Dec 2008 11:26:19 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>And yet here we still are. :-)

Stardust?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:36:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 17 Dec 2008 11:26:19 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>And yet here we still are. :-)
> 
> Stardust?

Planetary debris, perhaps. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 17 Dec 2008 13:05:17 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:36:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 17 Dec 2008 11:26:19 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>And yet here we still are. :-)
>> 
>> Stardust?
>
>Planetary debris, perhaps. ;-)
>

Incoming!   Duck!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:40:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> Incoming!   Duck!

Duck?  Where!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

>> Incoming!   Duck!
> 
> Duck?  Where!

Over there!

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

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! ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:34:04 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>>> Incoming!   Duck!
>> 
>> Duck?  Where!
> 
> Over there!

There?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 17 Dec 2008 16:22:42 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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"
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:00:06 +0000, 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?

Where you said "over there!".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:59:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 17 Dec 2008 16:22:42 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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