thrilling installment #14 of whatever

And when it was 2004-08-21, illusion
<cg7cbs$jnq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> was created,
stating that Refractor Dragon <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web>
uttered in alt.games.creatures:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncibb6k.16h.the_emmel*whatever*@storm.mlnet...
>> And when it was 2004-08-17, illusion
>> <cfsn74$5fl$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk> was created,
>> stating that Refractor Dragon <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web>
>> uttered in alt.games.creatures:
>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> > news:slrnchujfh.1si.the_emmel*whatever*@storm.mlnet...
>> >> >> > Sorry, right. *quotes again*
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 'I have a few dictionaried running locally, but it's faster to add
>> > (sp?)
>> >> >> > than looking it up.'
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, it would be 'easier to say it in addition than look it up'?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bingo!
>> >> >
>> >> > ...I don't get it.
>> >>
>> >> The 'bingo' part?
>> >
>> > No, I understand the 'bingo' part, but 'easier to say it in addition
> than
>> > look it up' doesn't actually make any sense.
>>
>> It is easier (faster) to write "(sp?)" after the word in question (add
>> it to the line, perhaps?) than to take the time to look it up. If I knew
>> that that bit would result in that much fuss I'd probably just have
>> looked it up, though...
>
> *thwaps self* Gah. I thought that you were confused about the spelling of
> 'add', not referring to '(sp?)'... skah. Sorry.


<bg>
LOL
ROFLMAO
Sorry.

>> >> >> ::shrugs::
>> >> >> Nobody really knows what's going on - there's a good deal of
>> > speculation
>> >> >> and not much else.
>> >> >
>> >> > Indeed. String theory being most prominent lately...
>> >>
>> >> Yup.
>> >
>> > Indeed. Perhaps, in fifty years or so, we'll know better. *nods*
>>
>> I'll do my very best...
>
> Good luck.

I'll need it. Very much.
--
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.

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncitmiv.16b.the_emmel*whatever*@storm.mlnet...
> And when it was 2004-08-21, illusion
> <cg7cbs$jnq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> was created,
> stating that Refractor Dragon <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web>
> uttered in alt.games.creatures:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> > news:slrncibb6k.16h.the_emmel*whatever*@storm.mlnet...
> >> And when it was 2004-08-17, illusion
> >> <cfsn74$5fl$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk> was created,
> >> stating that Refractor Dragon <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web>
> >> uttered in alt.games.creatures:
> >> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:slrnchujfh.1si.the_emmel*whatever*@storm.mlnet...
> >> >> >> > Sorry, right. *quotes again*
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 'I have a few dictionaried running locally, but it's faster to
add
> >> > (sp?)
> >> >> >> > than looking it up.'
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So, it would be 'easier to say it in addition than look it up'?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Bingo!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ...I don't get it.
> >> >>
> >> >> The 'bingo' part?
> >> >
> >> > No, I understand the 'bingo' part, but 'easier to say it in addition
> > than
> >> > look it up' doesn't actually make any sense.
> >>
> >> It is easier (faster) to write "(sp?)" after the word in question (add
> >> it to the line, perhaps?) than to take the time to look it up. If I
knew
> >> that that bit would result in that much fuss I'd probably just have
> >> looked it up, though...
> >
> > *thwaps self* Gah. I thought that you were confused about the spelling
of
> > 'add', not referring to '(sp?)'... skah. Sorry.
>
>
> <bg>
> LOL
> ROFLMAO
> Sorry.

Bah.

> >> >> >> ::shrugs::
> >> >> >> Nobody really knows what's going on - there's a good deal of
> >> > speculation
> >> >> >> and not much else.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Indeed. String theory being most prominent lately...
> >> >>
> >> >> Yup.
> >> >
> >> > Indeed. Perhaps, in fifty years or so, we'll know better. *nods*
> >>
> >> I'll do my very best...
> >
> > Good luck.
>
> I'll need it. Very much.

*nods* *thinks* ...See previous sentence, I think. Hrm.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-