 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:40:12 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> 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! :-)
No, no, no, the proper response is "Who are you, Carl Sagan?!"
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:29:11 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>Or perhaps occupies a different hyperplane.
>
> Yip, there is that
Or a different hypersphere.
Which reminds me, there's a really good video exploration of extra-
dimensional mathematics, can't remember if it was posted here or not.
I'll have to see if I can find it again, it was fascinating stuff.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:23:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> 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.
Author?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2008 12:17:17 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:23:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Author?
>
Frederik Pohl and Cyril M. Kornbluth,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator-At-Law
Gladiator-At-Law
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0671655663/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2008 12:10:45 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>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. :-)
>
Wasn't it now, then and then, now?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2008 12:11:36 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:40:12 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> 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! :-)
>
>No, no, no, the proper response is "Who are you, Carl Sagan?!"
>
(Woosh!)
Didn't someone open his box,years ago?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:26:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2008 12:17:17 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:23:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Author?
>>
>>
> Frederik Pohl and Cyril M. Kornbluth,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator-At-Law
>
> Gladiator-At-Law
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0671655663/ref=dp_olp_0?
ie=UTF8&condition=all
Cool, will have to have a look.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2008 12:16:49 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:29:11 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>Or perhaps occupies a different hyperplane.
>>
>> Yip, there is that
>
>Or a different hypersphere.
>
Render it, I dare you ;)
>Which reminds me, there's a really good video exploration of extra-
>dimensional mathematics, can't remember if it was posted here or not.
>I'll have to see if I can find it again, it was fascinating stuff.
>
>
Please do/
BTW what is the record for the longest thread of trivia?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:27:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2008 12:10:45 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>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. :-)
>>
> Wasn't it now, then and then, now?
Don't you mean "wasn't it now then, and then now?"?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:28:44 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>Are you training me for when my kid learns this word?
>>>
>>> Got it!
>>
>>No, no, no, the proper response is "Who are you, Carl Sagan?!"
>>
>>
> (Woosh!)
>
> Didn't someone open his box,years ago?
Robin Williams, "Live at the Met", talking about his son Zachary.
Hilarious stuff. The logical follow-on is his interview on "Inside the
Actors Studio" where he talks about the same child as a young adult. I
may have to watch that again now. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2008 12:30:47 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:27:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 19 Dec 2008 12:10:45 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>>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. :-)
>>>
>> Wasn't it now, then and then, now?
>
>Don't you mean "wasn't it now then, and then now?"?
>
I don't know, lets ask Darren?
IIRC he was hot on apostrophes and commas are just fallen apostrophes.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2008 12:33:29 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>Robin Williams, "Live at the Met", talking about his son Zachary.
>
>Hilarious stuff. The logical follow-on is his interview on "Inside the
>Actors Studio" where he talks about the same child as a young adult. I
>may have to watch that again now. :-)
He is funny, he was on TV here recently and had to be dragged off.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:35:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2008 12:33:29 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>
>>Robin Williams, "Live at the Met", talking about his son Zachary.
>>
>>Hilarious stuff. The logical follow-on is his interview on "Inside the
>>Actors Studio" where he talks about the same child as a young adult. I
>>may have to watch that again now. :-)
>
> He is funny, he was on TV here recently and had to be dragged off.
Had to be dragged off?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:30:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>Or a different hypersphere.
>>
>>
> Render it, I dare you
I don't work that way. ;-) Besides, the videos I mentioned show
something like that. :-)
>>Which reminds me, there's a really good video exploration of extra-
>>dimensional mathematics, can't remember if it was posted here or not.
>>I'll have to see if I can find it again, it was fascinating stuff.
>>
>>
> Please do/
>
> BTW what is the record for the longest thread of trivia?
3,192,793 messages. Why do you ask? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:33:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2008 12:30:47 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:27:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 19 Dec 2008 12:10:45 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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. :-)
>>>>
>>> Wasn't it now, then and then, now?
>>
>>Don't you mean "wasn't it now then, and then now?"?
>>
> I don't know, lets ask Darren?
> IIRC he was hot on apostrophes and commas are just fallen apostrophes.
I'm pretty sure it is what I wrote. :-)
I think Darren probably stopped following this thread long ago. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2008 12:30:47 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:27:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 19 Dec 2008 12:10:45 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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. :-)
>>>>
>>> Wasn't it now, then and then, now?
>> Don't you mean "wasn't it now then, and then now?"?
>>
> I don't know, lets ask Darren?
> IIRC he was hot on apostrophes and commas are just fallen apostrophes.
>
I think it may be mayn't haven't been. That's just a wild guess.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2008 12:11:36 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:40:12 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> 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! :-)
>> No, no, no, the proper response is "Who are you, Carl Sagan?!"
>>
>
> (Woosh!)
>
> Didn't someone open his box,years ago?
Nah, I left it closed. I liked the superposition of the cat better than
the observed state.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2008 12:33:29 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> Robin Williams, "Live at the Met", talking about his son Zachary.
>>
>> Hilarious stuff. The logical follow-on is his interview on "Inside the
>> Actors Studio" where he talks about the same child as a young adult. I
>> may have to watch that again now. :-)
>
> He is funny, he was on TV here recently and had to be dragged off.
Haha.. what? Why?
One of my favorite comedians, btw..
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>
> Render it, I dare you ;)
>
You'd need to calculate diffuse lighting and project it in 3D space to
get anything meaningful. A projection of a hypersphere would look much
like a sphere.
>
> BTW what is the record for the longest thread of trivia?
One of Andy's "Wondering" series?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> BTW what is the record for the longest thread of trivia?
More worthless trivia:
The only two classes in my entire four years of high school I received
an A (>90%) in were Computer Science, and Chemistry...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:30:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>Which reminds me, there's a really good video exploration of extra-
>>dimensional mathematics, can't remember if it was posted here or not.
>>I'll have to see if I can find it again, it was fascinating stuff.
>>
>>
> Please do/
Found it:
http://www.dimensions-math.org/
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2008 12:53:56 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:35:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 19 Dec 2008 12:33:29 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Robin Williams, "Live at the Met", talking about his son Zachary.
>>>
>>>Hilarious stuff. The logical follow-on is his interview on "Inside the
>>>Actors Studio" where he talks about the same child as a young adult. I
>>>may have to watch that again now. :-)
>>
>> He is funny, he was on TV here recently and had to be dragged off.
>
>Had to be dragged off?
>
Not literally but you know when he gets started, he can't stop. Outside of his
act (it was a chat show) he is a nice polite man. (If a bit loud) :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:56:31 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Haha.. what? Why?
>
He just kept on and on and on.
Never lost for words ;)
>One of my favorite comedians, btw..
Yes but (IMO) needs a good director, to keep him in check.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:35:49 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>One of my favorite comedians, btw..
>
> Yes but (IMO) needs a good director, to keep him in check.
Oh, no, when he goes off on his own doing stand-up, it's very funny.
Have a look for the interview on Inside the Actors Studio - the extended
version. His energy levels are just crazy and it's all improv.
As Lipton says at one point in the interview, "What the hell is going on
in there?"
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:34:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>Had to be dragged off?
>>
>>
> Not literally but you know when he gets started, he can't stop. Outside
> of his act (it was a chat show) he is a nice polite man. (If a bit loud)
It depends I think on whether he's "people watching" - from the
interview, he indicated that he does that often and people don't even
recognise him.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:54:29 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>I think it may be mayn't haven't been. That's just a wild guess.
Swot! :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2008 12:55:45 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I don't know, lets ask Darren?
>> IIRC he was hot on apostrophes and commas are just fallen apostrophes.
>
>I'm pretty sure it is what I wrote. :-)
>
>I think Darren probably stopped following this thread long ago. :-)
More sense than us, then :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2008 14:29:10 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:34:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>Had to be dragged off?
>>>
>>>
>> Not literally but you know when he gets started, he can't stop. Outside
>> of his act (it was a chat show) he is a nice polite man. (If a bit loud)
>
>It depends I think on whether he's "people watching" - from the
>interview, he indicated that he does that often and people don't even
>recognise him.
>
You would know better than me.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2008 14:28:30 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:35:49 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>One of my favorite comedians, btw..
>>
>> Yes but (IMO) needs a good director, to keep him in check.
>
>Oh, no, when he goes off on his own doing stand-up, it's very funny.
>Have a look for the interview on Inside the Actors Studio - the extended
>version. His energy levels are just crazy and it's all improv.
>
>As Lipton says at one point in the interview, "What the hell is going on
>in there?"
>
I meant as an actor not a stand up.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2008 12:55:11 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:30:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>Or a different hypersphere.
>>>
>>>
>> Render it, I dare you
>
>I don't work that way. ;-) Besides, the videos I mentioned show
>something like that. :-)
>
I'll look at it later in the thread ;)
>>>Which reminds me, there's a really good video exploration of extra-
>>>dimensional mathematics, can't remember if it was posted here or not.
>>>I'll have to see if I can find it again, it was fascinating stuff.
>>>
>>>
>> Please do/
>>
>> BTW what is the record for the longest thread of trivia?
>
>3,192,793 messages. Why do you ask? ;-)
>
To see if it was worth carrying on :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:58:45 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>>
>> Render it, I dare you ;)
>>
>
>You'd need to calculate diffuse lighting and project it in 3D space to
>get anything meaningful. A projection of a hypersphere would look much
>like a sphere.
>
What's stopping you then? ;)
>>
>> BTW what is the record for the longest thread of trivia?
>
>One of Andy's "Wondering" series?
I'm out of here.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:04:10 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> BTW what is the record for the longest thread of trivia?
>
>More worthless trivia:
>
>The only two classes in my entire four years of high school I received
>an A (>90%) in were Computer Science, and Chemistry...
I flunked Chemistry :(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
