Clarification required in the catch-up process

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncdp14e.cnf.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer RemoveThis @beeb.web> wrote:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >
news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
> > knowledge
> >> > of
> >> >> >> > whether
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
> >> >>
> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >
> >> > Ah.
> >> >
> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some
> > entity
> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
> > /something/'s
> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
> >>
> >> What's thinking anyway?
> >
> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we reason
that
> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the thinking.
>
> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to be
> anything that thinks?

There may be layers of reality and/or unreality. All may be illusion.
Yet... all?

There is that which perceives. This whole world, this whole appearance of a
universe could all be illusion... except.

There is that which perceives.

Whatever the source, there is /perception/.

And there is that which perceives.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 >> Stay informed about: Clarification required in the catch-up process 

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncdp14e.cnf.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer.RemoveThis@beeb.web> wrote:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >
news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
> > knowledge
> >> > of
> >> >> >> > whether
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
> >> >>
> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >
> >> > Ah.
> >> >
> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some
> > entity
> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
> > /something/'s
> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
> >>
> >> What's thinking anyway?
> >
> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we reason
that
> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the thinking.
>
> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to be
> anything that thinks?

You are asking an awful lot of questions, for a guy
that doesn't want any thinking about.....


--
It is by Caffeine alone I set my mind
in motion. It is by the beans of Java
that thoughts aquire speed, the hands
aquire shakes, the shakes become a
warning. It is by caffeine alone I set
my mind in motion.
 >> Stay informed about: Clarification required in the catch-up process 

On 2004-06-26, Refractor Dragon <wanderer DeleteThis @beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncdp14e.cnf.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer DeleteThis @beeb.web> wrote:
>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> >
> news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
>> > knowledge
>> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > whether
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > What?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some
>> > entity
>> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
>> > /something/'s
>> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
>> >>
>> >> What's thinking anyway?
>> >
>> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we reason
> that
>> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the thinking.
>>
>> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
>> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to be
>> anything that thinks?
>
> There may be layers of reality and/or unreality. All may be illusion.
> Yet... all?
>
> There is that which perceives. This whole world, this whole appearance of a
> universe could all be illusion... except.
>
> There is that which perceives.
>
> Whatever the source, there is /perception/.
>
> And there is that which perceives.

Nice try, but reasoning doesn't work very well with lunatics
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 >> Stay informed about: Clarification required in the catch-up process 

On 2004-06-26, Balyn <balyn_62 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncdp14e.cnf.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer RemoveThis @beeb.web> wrote:
>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> >
> news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
>> > knowledge
>> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > whether
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > What?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some
>> > entity
>> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
>> > /something/'s
>> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
>> >>
>> >> What's thinking anyway?
>> >
>> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we reason
> that
>> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the thinking.
>>
>> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
>> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to be
>> anything that thinks?
>
> You are asking an awful lot of questions, for a guy
> that doesn't want any thinking about.....

Well, that's something for you to figure out... let's add a 'what's this
guy *really* up to' to the list.
Asking questions is more of an answer than babbling "Cogito ergo sum."
can ever be. That doesn't include Descartes, however.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 >> Stay informed about: Clarification required in the catch-up process 

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnce07ft.nvr.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2004-06-26, Refractor Dragon <wanderer DeleteThis @beeb.web> wrote:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >
news:slrncdp14e.cnf.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer DeleteThis @beeb.web> wrote:
> >> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >> >
> >
news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
> >> > knowledge
> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> > whether
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > What?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ah.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some
> >> > entity
> >> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
> >> > /something/'s
> >> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
> >> >>
> >> >> What's thinking anyway?
> >> >
> >> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we reason
> > that
> >> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the thinking.
> >>
> >> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
> >> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to be
> >> anything that thinks?
> >
> > There may be layers of reality and/or unreality. All may be illusion.
> > Yet... all?
> >
> > There is that which perceives. This whole world, this whole appearance
of a
> > universe could all be illusion... except.
> >
> > There is that which perceives.
> >
> > Whatever the source, there is /perception/.
> >
> > And there is that which perceives.
>
> Nice try, but reasoning doesn't work very well with lunatics

*shrugs* I can but reason; it is your choice whether to consider my/our
words or not.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 >> Stay informed about: Clarification required in the catch-up process 

On 2004-06-28, Refractor Dragon <wanderer RemoveThis @beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnce07ft.nvr.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2004-06-26, Refractor Dragon <wanderer RemoveThis @beeb.web> wrote:
>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> >
> news:slrncdp14e.cnf.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> >> On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer RemoveThis @beeb.web> wrote:
>> >> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >
> news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
>> >> > knowledge
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> > whether
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > What?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ah.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some
>> >> > entity
>> >> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
>> >> > /something/'s
>> >> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What's thinking anyway?
>> >> >
>> >> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we reason
>> > that
>> >> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the thinking.
>> >>
>> >> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
>> >> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to be
>> >> anything that thinks?
>> >
>> > There may be layers of reality and/or unreality. All may be illusion.
>> > Yet... all?
>> >
>> > There is that which perceives. This whole world, this whole appearance
> of a
>> > universe could all be illusion... except.
>> >
>> > There is that which perceives.
>> >
>> > Whatever the source, there is /perception/.
>> >
>> > And there is that which perceives.
>>
>> Nice try, but reasoning doesn't work very well with lunatics
>
> *shrugs* I can but reason; it is your choice whether to consider my/our
> words or not.

Oh, I just don't accept reasoning from possibly non-existing entities

BTW do you share the impression of people being disturbingly silent
lately? Have we scared them off or something?
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 >> Stay informed about: Clarification required in the catch-up process 

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnce2pe8.7te.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2004-06-28, Refractor Dragon <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >
news:slrnce07ft.nvr.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> On 2004-06-26, Refractor Dragon <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
> >> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >> >
> >
news:slrncdp14e.cnf.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> >> On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
> >> >> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >
news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
> >> >> > knowledge
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> >> > whether
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > What?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Ah.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's
some
> >> >> > entity
> >> >> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
> >> >> > /something/'s
> >> >> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What's thinking anyway?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we
reason
> >> > that
> >> >> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the
thinking.
> >> >>
> >> >> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
> >> >> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to
be
> >> >> anything that thinks?
> >> >
> >> > There may be layers of reality and/or unreality. All may be
illusion.
> >> > Yet... all?
> >> >
> >> > There is that which perceives. This whole world, this whole
appearance
> > of a
> >> > universe could all be illusion... except.
> >> >
> >> > There is that which perceives.
> >> >
> >> > Whatever the source, there is /perception/.
> >> >
> >> > And there is that which perceives.
> >>
> >> Nice try, but reasoning doesn't work very well with lunatics
> >
> > *shrugs* I can but reason; it is your choice whether to consider my/our
> > words or not.
>
> Oh, I just don't accept reasoning from possibly non-existing entities
>

How do you expect to keep an open mind, then? *mock-affront*

> BTW do you share the impression of people being disturbingly silent
> lately? Have we scared them off or something?

*sighs* I fear they're just slipping back into lurkhood. Pity.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 >> Stay informed about: Clarification required in the catch-up process 

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:05:53 +0100, "Refractor Dragon"
<wanderer.TakeThisOut@beeb.web> wrote:

>"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnce2pe8.7te.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2004-06-28, Refractor Dragon <wanderer.TakeThisOut@beeb.web> wrote:
>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> >
>
>> BTW do you share the impression of people being disturbingly silent
>> lately? Have we scared them off or something?
>
>*sighs* I fear they're just slipping back into lurkhood. Pity.

It's because you post stuff that would be better in e-mail, and you
*never snip*. Makes even lurking tedious!

Nutter
--
CObfinder General - http://www.probetech.co.uk/cobdata
399 CObs for Creatures 1

Come visit the region of Albia on NationStates:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/-1/page=display_region/r...on=albi
 >> Stay informed about: Clarification required in the catch-up process 

On 2004-06-29, Refractor Dragon <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnce2pe8.7te.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2004-06-28, Refractor Dragon <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
>> >> >> > knowledge
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> >> > whether
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > What?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Ah.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's
> some
>> >> >> > entity
>> >> >> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
>> >> >> > /something/'s
>> >> >> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What's thinking anyway?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we
> reason
>> >> > that
>> >> >> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the
> thinking.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
>> >> >> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to
> be
>> >> >> anything that thinks?
>> >> >
>> >> > There may be layers of reality and/or unreality. All may be
> illusion.
>> >> > Yet... all?
>> >> >
>> >> > There is that which perceives. This whole world, this whole
> appearance
>> > of a
>> >> > universe could all be illusion... except.
>> >> >
>> >> > There is that which perceives.
>> >> >
>> >> > Whatever the source, there is /perception/.
>> >> >
>> >> > And there is that which perceives.
>> >>
>> >> Nice try, but reasoning doesn't work very well with lunatics
>> >
>> > *shrugs* I can but reason; it is your choice whether to consider my/our
>> > words or not.
>>
>> Oh, I just don't accept reasoning from possibly non-existing entities
>>
>
> How do you expect to keep an open mind, then? *mock-affront*

By hallucinating it (the open mind, OK).

>> BTW do you share the impression of people being disturbingly silent
>> lately? Have we scared them off or something?
>
> *sighs* I fear they're just slipping back into lurkhood. Pity.

I say they saw(sp?) me and run away.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 >> Stay informed about: Clarification required in the catch-up process 

On 2004-06-30, Nutter <margali DeleteThis @ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:05:53 +0100, "Refractor Dragon"
><wanderer DeleteThis @beeb.web> wrote:
>
>>"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>news:slrnce2pe8.7te.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>> On 2004-06-28, Refractor Dragon <wanderer DeleteThis @beeb.web> wrote:
>>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>> >
>>
>>> BTW do you share the impression of people being disturbingly silent
>>> lately? Have we scared them off or something?
>>
>>*sighs* I fear they're just slipping back into lurkhood. Pity.
>
> It's because you post stuff that would be better in e-mail, and you
> *never snip*. Makes even lurking tedious!
>
> Nutter

Yes, I thought it's my fault...
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 >> Stay informed about: Clarification required in the catch-up process 

"Nutter" <margali DeleteThis @ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4125e0hsrdc5vd61fl3lm97iecck8gennh@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:05:53 +0100, "Refractor Dragon"
> <wanderer DeleteThis @beeb.web> wrote:
>
> >"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>
>news:slrnce2pe8.7te.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> On 2004-06-28, Refractor Dragon <wanderer DeleteThis @beeb.web> wrote:
> >> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >> >
> >
> >> BTW do you share the impression of people being disturbingly silent
> >> lately? Have we scared them off or something?
> >
> >*sighs* I fear they're just slipping back into lurkhood. Pity.
>
> It's because you post stuff that would be better in e-mail, and you
> *never snip*. Makes even lurking tedious!

Bah! ...We snip sometimes! And email evyl. Sort of, at least.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 >> Stay informed about: Clarification required in the catch-up process 

margali.DeleteThis@ukonline.co.uk (Nutter) wrote in
news:4125e0hsrdc5vd61fl3lm97iecck8gennh@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:05:53 +0100, "Refractor Dragon"
> <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
>
>>"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>news:slrnce2pe8.7te.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de
>>...
>>> On 2004-06-28, Refractor Dragon <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
>>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>> >
>>
>>> BTW do you share the impression of people being disturbingly silent
>>> lately? Have we scared them off or something?
>>
>>*sighs* I fear they're just slipping back into lurkhood. Pity.
>
> It's because you post stuff that would be better in e-mail, and you
> *never snip*. Makes even lurking tedious!
>
> Nutter

ah...

Well, for me it's more like I've lost the AGC habit. :`(

I haven't had xnews installed for ever such a long time so I forget to
open it up and have a look-see.
 >> Stay informed about: Clarification required in the catch-up process 

"xOtix" <also.TakeThisOut@this.invalis> wrote in message
news:Xns9518E392330D5ja455LWxghlli55sxlt@24.24.2.166...
> margali.TakeThisOut@ukonline.co.uk (Nutter) wrote in
> news:4125e0hsrdc5vd61fl3lm97iecck8gennh@4ax.com:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:05:53 +0100, "Refractor Dragon"
> > <wanderer.TakeThisOut@beeb.web> wrote:
> >
> >>"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >>news:slrnce2pe8.7te.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de
> >>...
> >>> On 2004-06-28, Refractor Dragon <wanderer.TakeThisOut@beeb.web> wrote:
> >>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >>> >
> >>
> >>> BTW do you share the impression of people being disturbingly silent
> >>> lately? Have we scared them off or something?
> >>
> >>*sighs* I fear they're just slipping back into lurkhood. Pity.
> >
> > It's because you post stuff that would be better in e-mail, and you
> > *never snip*. Makes even lurking tedious!
> >
> > Nutter
>
> ah...
>
> Well, for me it's more like I've lost the AGC habit. :`(
>
> I haven't had xnews installed for ever such a long time so I forget to
> open it up and have a look-see.

Yeep. *begins thinking of wild and/or improbable ways to make it a habit
again, including you being unable to access the Internet unless you first
use the xnews thingamajig* Hrmm. *plots*

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 >> Stay informed about: Clarification required in the catch-up process