Prev: and possibly offensive to sensitive souls - don't read this if you are offended by language. WAS: Re: Anyone feeling poetic?
Next: Test request (for Enter;prise COBOL)
From: Anonymous on 21 Jul 2010 08:23
In article <2b3a0d9f-6230-425a-9feb-4ed666af2534(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Jul 20, 3:28?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote:
>> In article
>> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On Jul 19, 6:24?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote:
>> >> In article <rd09465s2i337t38ur6n479ordjc0ov...(a)4ax.com>,
>> >> Howard Brazee ?<how...(a)brazee.net> wrote:
>> >> >Maybe you're a doctor the same way the protagonist of Dr. Who is.
>> >> I had to research that one... but no, I have never been proclaimed thus
>> >> by a crew of scriptwriters.
>> >Whoa! You had to research the great Dr. Who?! Where have you been the
>> >last 50 years?
>> Among other things... watching different television program(me)s, it
>Don't forget the films. The last one bombed (although it was good) but
>you must have heard of the Daleks?
I read of the during the research I did for the preceding posting, Mr
Maclean, and beyond that have no exposure. I believe I've mentioned
previously that the talking-pictures I tend to watch are in
black-and-white and filled with dead people... oh, look, there's Eddie
From: Howard Brazee on 21 Jul 2010 10:38
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:23:20 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:
>I read of the during the research I did for the preceding posting, Mr
>Maclean, and beyond that have no exposure. I believe I've mentioned
>previously that the talking-pictures I tend to watch are in
>black-and-white and filled with dead people... oh, look, there's Eddie
My son has his family big on Dr. Who, which is how I know about it.
When I was a teen, I knew all of the TV shows of the three networks,
but was in college by the time my local stations had that show, and I
have only seen scenes of the show while visiting others.
My DvD & Blu-ray library is maybe 1/3 B&W, with only a dozen or so
silent movies. I'm not sure whether I prefer movies to TV these
days because of the content - or because of some kind of control
issue. Sure I know I can buy stuff to let me watch the shows when I
want - but I don't *want* to feel a need to see this week's episode.
At any rate, I am very ignorant about popular culture.
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
From: Pete Dashwood on 21 Jul 2010 21:10
> In article
> Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 3:26?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote:
>>> In article
>>>>> What follows, Mr Maclean, might not be 'the explanation' but more
>>>>> of 'an explanation'.
>>>>> Life, by definition, is an organising of particles; consider
>>>>> embryogenesis from haploid gametes to diploid zygote to morula to
>>>>> blastocyst (two primary cell cell types) and so on, through the
>>>>> Carnegie stages. ?Each change is towards greater order, greater
>>>>> differentiation and growth, quite the opposite of entropy (a
>>>>> tendency towards disorder).
>>>> My understanding of the ins and outs of Entropy is limited but I
>>>> understand that the application of that law to the non-chaotic
>>>> ordering of life-forms is in error as Entropy applies to limited
>>>> closed systems and not to the Universe as a whole (or any
>>>> insignificant small blue-green planet on the edge of a spiral arm
>>>> of a minor galaxy in the middle of nowhere).
>>> Note that the example given above, Mr Maclean, deals off with two
>>> haploid gametes and a working uterus; this might appear to be more
>>> of a 'limited closed system' than 'the Universe as a whole (etc)'.
>> Hardly limited as those items garner nutrition from a wider
> Mr Dashwood, the description was not one of absolute limitation but of
> quality-of-limitedness (perhaps an inverse of 'richness of infity'); I
> believe that possibility might have been covered by the description
> of 'a working uterus... might appear to be more of a 'limited closed
> system' than 'the Universe as a whole (etc).'
> If you're trying to slip in a nigh-Buddhist 'all is connected'
> then perhaps the well-gazed-at Navel Reserves might be called out.
Hey! Not guilty!
You are responding to the wrong poster. I had no problem with your previous
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 21 Jul 2010 21:11
> Correction - in my response I erroneously addressed Mr Maclean as Mr
> Dashwood; this is mine own error and I offer apologies to all and
> sundry who might feel them necessary, appropriate or worthy of
Well your half-arsed apology is half-arsed accepted... :-)
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Anonymous on 22 Jul 2010 08:08
In article <8apk63FvqvU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>> Correction - in my response I erroneously addressed Mr Maclean as Mr
>> Dashwood; this is mine own error and I offer apologies to all and
>> sundry who might feel them necessary, appropriate or worthy of
>Well your half-arsed apology is half-arsed accepted... :-)
Folks *do* speak such funny languages in The Antipodes... I might have
described my apology as half-slow, not half-fast.