 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:gpo5k4p39nvv01p1a9ogr456pcl3mgjogc@4ax.com...
> On 12 Dec 2008 16:34:30 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:30:08 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>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 ...
Why Mike why?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:30:08 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 ...
>
> Why Mike why?
To make you ask why, that's why :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:54:42 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:30:08 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 ...
>>
>> Why Mike why?
>
>To make you ask why, that's why :)
Why?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:35:19 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Where?
>>
>>
> Neither here, nor there ...
Maybe it's everywhere!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:45:46 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> 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 ;)
Well, you wrote that then, this is now, as I write this.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:48:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>Because as it happens, we didn't reach a conclusion. Wabbit.
>>
>>
> Does your mother sew?
As a matter of fact, she does. ;-)
>
> Well get her to stitch this!
>
> Wa Wa WABBITS!
>
> (Am I the only one that's read "Gladiators at law"?)
Probably. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18 Dec 2008 18:01:40 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> (Am I the only one that's read "Gladiators at law"?)
>
>Probably. :-)
Shame, it was good.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18 Dec 2008 18:01:07 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:45:46 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> 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 ;)
>
>Well, you wrote that then, this is now, as I write this.
>
But not as I read it :(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18 Dec 2008 18:00:14 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:35:19 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>
>>> Where?
>>>
>>>
>> Neither here, nor there ...
>
>Maybe it's everywhere!
>
Maybe it is.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:54:42 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:30:08 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 ...
>>> Why Mike why?
>> To make you ask why, that's why :)
>
> Why?
Are you training me for when my kid learns this word?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2008 18:00:14 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:35:19 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Where?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Neither here, nor there ...
>> Maybe it's everywhere!
>>
>
> Maybe it is.
Or it could simply be nowhere.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:54:42 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:30:08 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 ...
>>> Why Mike why?
>> To make you ask why, that's why :)
>
> Why?
Fine, fine ... because observing it would change it. It could be dead or
alive before observing, but if the act of observing kills it, it will
only be dead.
Wait... I guess you can know the answer to that question. No.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:12:45 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:54:42 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:30:08 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 ...
>>>> Why Mike why?
>>> To make you ask why, that's why :)
>>
>> Why?
>
>Are you training me for when my kid learns this word?
Got it! :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:15:19 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:54:42 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:30:08 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 ...
>>>> Why Mike why?
>>> To make you ask why, that's why :)
>>
>> Why?
>
>Fine, fine ... because observing it would change it. It could be dead or
>alive before observing, but if the act of observing kills it, it will
>only be dead.
>
>Wait... I guess you can know the answer to that question. No.
Yes the answer is no. The cat was dead. Unless...
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:13:01 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On 18 Dec 2008 18:00:14 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:35:19 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Where?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Neither here, nor there ...
>>> Maybe it's everywhere!
>>>
>>
>> Maybe it is.
>
>Or it could simply be nowhere.
Or maybe it doesn't signify
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:13:01 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On 18 Dec 2008 18:00:14 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:35:19 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Where?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Neither here, nor there ...
>>>> Maybe it's everywhere!
>>>>
>>> Maybe it is.
>> Or it could simply be nowhere.
>
> Or maybe it doesn't signify
Or perhaps occupies a different hyperplane. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:48:13 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:13:01 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 18 Dec 2008 18:00:14 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:35:19 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither here, nor there ...
>>>>> Maybe it's everywhere!
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe it is.
>>> Or it could simply be nowhere.
>>
>> Or maybe it doesn't signify
>
>Or perhaps occupies a different hyperplane. :)
Yip, there is that ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:24:21 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>Well, you wrote that then, this is now, as I write this.
>>
>>
> But not as I read it
Well, it was when you wrote your reply, but now it's now, even as you
read this it's now. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
