On Friday, 13 December 2013 03:00:13 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote:> On 12/12/2013 1:00 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > > On Thursday, 12 December 2013 02:55:42 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote: > >> On 12/11/2013 12:50 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 15:23:45 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook > >>> Jr. wrote: > >>>> In article > >>>> <8b4098c1-b5c5-4ebd-8bdb-62a8d5eb7fab@googlegroups.com>, > >>>> bill.sloman@gmail.com says... > >>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 11:30:50 UTC+11, Maynard A. > >>>>> Philbrook Jr. wrote: > >>>>>> In article > >>>>>> <06c63953-1cfd-4cc5-87d7-4db8581f53f1@googlegroups.com>, > >>>>>> bill.sloman@gmail.com says... > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 10:42:39 UTC+11, Maynard A. > >>>>>>> Philbrook Jr. wrote: > >>>>>>>> In article <35oda9llspshpn4ol1omaagt9tsif0npuo@4ax.com>, > >>>>>>>> DLU1 @DecadentLinuxUser.org says... > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:00:42 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > >>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us: > >>> > >>> <snip> > >>> > >>>> What can I say, I married a nun, nun then and nun now! > >>> > >>> The pun is the lowest form of wit. > >> > >> Scorning puns is the last refuge of the humourless. ;) (* > > > > It might be, but quite a few people with a functioning senses of humour put the pun well down the pecking order. I don't scorn puns myself, but I don't use them all that often either. > > > >> Charles Lamb, not the least distinguished of English humourists, used to say that he wished that his "last breath drawn in... might be through a pipe and exhaled in a pun." > > > > A smoker and a punster. Not quite politically correct, which was probably what he had in mind when making the claim. > > > >> "It is a pistol let off at the ear; not a feather to tickle the intellect." (From "The Worst Puns Are The Best", in *Last Essays of Elia*, 1833.) > > > > Most theories of humour talk about confounding the reader or the listener's expectations. The pun is unsubtle. > > Your credentials as a humour expert are, how can I say, not immediately evident. How about making a better one?That's okay. You don't get my jokes, and I find your jokes a little too obvious. As defenses go it, it's a fairly obvious, and Jamie will probably claim that I pinched it from him. Meanwhile, here's something I posted a while ago - 11th May 1997 "In article <5ighgb$1...@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, hi...@rowland.org (Winfield Hill) says: <snip output from expert systems routine, retaining output from vituperation module and signature file>>No, I agree with Tony, you cheeky X%$%^&#@*& ..... > >We're both gonna march right over there and adjust your reverse voltage- >feedback ratio, you *&^^%$..., then we're gonna increase your emitter >degeneration, tie your substrate to Vcc and ..... > >-- >Winfield Hill hi...@rowland.org >Rowland Institute for Science >Cambridge, MA 02142It is with a certain measure of schadenfreude that we in Nijmegen note that Harvard's semi-automatous expert help system "Winfield Hill" based on Paul Horowitz's electronics textbook "The Art of Electronics" has failed its extended Turing test. The defect that lead its vituperation routine to assume that other entities on the net were also silicon based may be regarded as a feature rather than a bug, since it argues for a higher level of self-awareness than exhibited by most primate-based agents, but it clearly betrays the agent as silicon based, and allows its immediate identification as non-human within the constraints of the Turing test. We note that a system that was aware that it was taking part in a Turing test would not make such an error, and would hope that the Harvard system can be elaborated to the current state of the art." -- Bill Sloman, Sydney - fairly obviously, the extract above was posted from Nijmegen
Twisted Pair
Started by ●December 8, 2013
Reply by ●December 12, 20132013-12-12
Reply by ●December 12, 20132013-12-12
On Friday, 13 December 2013 08:32:13 UTC+11, George Herold wrote:> On Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:29:22 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote: > > On Thursday, 12 December 2013 04:43:34 UTC+11, George Herold wrote:=20 > > =20 > <snip>=20 > > > > > Re puns: For those sci-fi types that enjoy puns check out =20 > > =20 > > > "Callahans Crosstime Saloon" by Spider Robinson. =20 > >=20 > > > (later volumes in the series move from the bar to a "cathouse", and g=et a little more racy.)> > =20 > > I never could understand why Analog Science Fact and Fiction published =Spider Robinson's stuff. Even by the depressing standards of hard science f= iction it was tediously contentless. =20>=20 > Do you mean science content? If so I'll agree, plenty of human content t=hough. You probably don't like Theodore Sturgeon either then. No hard sci= ence, plenty of emotion/love. "Need" may be my favorite short story. (My = fiction reading has taken a big detour into Sturgeon lately.) Spider Robinson wasn't into human content, unless you count boiler-plate sl= oppy sentimentality as "human content". Theodore Sturgeon is a lot further up my pecking order. He was one of my fa= vourite authors back in the 1960's though I went off him a bit as I got old= er. He's below people like James Blish, Fritz Leiber, Pohl and Kornbluth, Pohl = on his own, Larry Niven, Ian M Banks, Charles Stross and Ken MacLeod. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_MacLeod Of course, a large part of Ken McLeod's appeal is that he isn't quite as ri= ght wing as regular science fiction, which is biased to appeal to the Ameri= can market. I mainly liked Fritz Leiber for "The Silver Eggheads", which is= more satirical than most of the stuff he wrote, though "Conjure Wife" came= close.> > I stopped subscribing to Analog around the time Spider Robinson became =a regular contributor, after being a faithful subscriber from the late 1950= 's. -- =20 Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●December 12, 20132013-12-12
On 12/12/2013 10:02 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:> On Friday, 13 December 2013 03:00:13 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote: >> On 12/12/2013 1:00 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 02:55:42 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs >>> wrote: >>>> On 12/11/2013 12:50 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 15:23:45 UTC+11, Maynard A. >>>>> Philbrook Jr. wrote: >>>>>> In article >>>>>> <8b4098c1-b5c5-4ebd-8bdb-62a8d5eb7fab@googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> bill.sloman@gmail.com says... >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 11:30:50 UTC+11, Maynard >>>>>>> A. Philbrook Jr. wrote: >>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>> <06c63953-1cfd-4cc5-87d7-4db8581f53f1@googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>bill.sloman@gmail.com says...>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 10:42:39 UTC+11, >>>>>>>>> Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>> <35oda9llspshpn4ol1omaagt9tsif0npuo@4ax.com>, DLU1 >>>>>>>>>> @DecadentLinuxUser.org says... >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:00:42 -0800 (PST), Bill >>>>>>>>>>> Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>> What can I say, I married a nun, nun then and nun now! >>>>> >>>>> The pun is the lowest form of wit. >>>> >>>> Scorning puns is the last refuge of the humourless. ;) (* >>> >>> It might be, but quite a few people with a functioning senses of >>> humour put the pun well down the pecking order. I don't scorn >>> puns myself, but I don't use them all that often either. >>> >>>> Charles Lamb, not the least distinguished of English >>>> humourists, used to say that he wished that his "last breath >>>> drawn in... might be through a pipe and exhaled in a pun." >>> >>> A smoker and a punster. Not quite politically correct, which was >>> probably what he had in mind when making the claim. >>> >>>> "It is a pistol let off at the ear; not a feather to tickle the >>>> intellect." (From "The Worst Puns Are The Best", in *Last >>>> Essays of Elia*, 1833.) >>> >>> Most theories of humour talk about confounding the reader or the >>> listener's expectations. The pun is unsubtle. >> >> Your credentials as a humour expert are, how can I say, not >> immediately evident. How about making a better one? > > That's okay. You don't get my jokes, and I find your jokes a little > too obvious. > > As defenses go it, it's a fairly obvious, and Jamie will probably > claim that I pinched it from him. > > Meanwhile, here's something I posted a while ago - 11th May 1997Well, if your last attempt at a joke was over 16 years ago, I obviously have a treat in store sometime around 2030. I can't wait. ;) Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Reply by ●December 13, 20132013-12-13
On Friday, 13 December 2013 14:58:03 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote:> On 12/12/2013 10:02 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: > > On Friday, 13 December 2013 03:00:13 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote: > >> On 12/12/2013 1:00 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 02:55:42 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 12/11/2013 12:50 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 15:23:45 UTC+11, Maynard A. > >>>>> Philbrook Jr. wrote:=20 > >>>>>> In article=20 > >>>>>> <8b4098c1-b5c5-4ebd-8bdb-62a8d5eb7fab@googlegroups.com>,=20 > >>>>>> bill.sloman@gmail.com says...=20 > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 11:30:50 UTC+11, Maynard=20 > >>>>>>> A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:=20 > >>>>>>>> In article=20 > >>>>>>>> <06c63953-1cfd-4cc5-87d7-4db8581f53f1@googlegroups.com>,=20 > bill.sloman@gmail.com says...=20 > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 10:42:39 UTC+11, > >>>>>>>>> Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote=20 > >>>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>>> <35oda9llspshpn4ol1omaagt9tsif0npuo@4ax.com>, DLU1 > >>>>>>>>>> @DecadentLinuxUser.org says... > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:00:42 -0800 (PST), Bill > >>>>>>>>>>> Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us: > >>>>> > >>>>> <snip>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>> What can I say, I married a nun, nun then and nun now! > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> The pun is the lowest form of wit. > >>>> > >>>> Scorning puns is the last refuge of the humourless. ;) (* > >>>=20 > >>> It might be, but quite a few people with a functioning senses of humo=ur put the pun well down the pecking order. I don't scorn puns myself, but = I don't use them all that often either.=20> >>> > >>>> Charles Lamb, not the least distinguished of English humourists, use=d to say that he wished that his "last breath drawn in... might be through= a pipe and exhaled in a pun."=20> >>> > >>> A smoker and a punster. Not quite politically correct, which was prob=ably what he had in mind when making the claim.=20> >>> > >>>> "It is a pistol let off at the ear; not a feather to tickle the inte=llect." (From "The Worst Puns Are The Best", in *Last Essays of Elia*, 1833= .)=20> >>>=20 > >>> Most theories of humour talk about confounding the reader or the list=ener's expectations. The pun is unsubtle.=20> >>=20 > >> Your credentials as a humour expert are, how can I say, notimmediately evident. How about making a better one?=20> >=20 > > That's okay. You don't get my jokes, and I find your jokes a littletoo obvious.> > > > As defenses go it, it's a fairly obvious, and Jamie will probably claim=that I pinched it from him.=20> > > > Meanwhile, here's something I posted a while ago - 11th May 1997<snipped joke> =20> Well, if your last attempt at a joke was over 16 years ago, I obviously =have a treat in store sometime around 2030. I can't wait. ;) If you've missed the more recent ones, you may have an even longer wait. De= scribing the 1997 post as an "attempt at a joke" suggests that you might no= t have recognised it as a joke back then, which would argue for a severely = stunted sense of humour. It was selected on the basis that it was obviously= intended to be a joke, and would more or less work when shorn of context. --=20 Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●December 13, 20132013-12-13
On 12/12/2013 11:24 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:> On Friday, 13 December 2013 14:58:03 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote: >> On 12/12/2013 10:02 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On Friday, 13 December 2013 03:00:13 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>> On 12/12/2013 1:00 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 02:55:42 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 12/11/2013 12:50 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 15:23:45 UTC+11, Maynard >>>>>>> A. Philbrook Jr. wrote: >>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>> <8b4098c1-b5c5-4ebd-8bdb-62a8d5eb7fab@googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>bill.sloman@gmail.com says...>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 11:30:50 UTC+11, >>>>>>>>> Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>> <06c63953-1cfd-4cc5-87d7-4db8581f53f1@googlegroups.com>, >> >>>>>>>>>>bill.sloman@gmail.com says...>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 10:42:39 UTC+11, >>>>>>>>>>> Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote >>>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>>> <35oda9llspshpn4ol1omaagt9tsif0npuo@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>> DLU1 @DecadentLinuxUser.org says... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:00:42 -0800 (PST), >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What can I say, I married a nun, nun then and nun now! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The pun is the lowest form of wit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Scorning puns is the last refuge of the humourless. ;) (* >>>>> Itr might be, but quite a few people with a functioning >>>>> senses of humour put the pun well down the pecking order. I >>>>> don't scorn puns myself, but I don't use them all that often >>>>> either. >>>>> >>>>>> Charles Lamb, not the least distinguished of English >>>>>> humourists, used to say that he wished that his "last >>>>>> breath drawn in... might be through a pipe and exhaled in >>>>>> a pun." >>>>> >>>>> A smoker and a punster. Not quite politically correct, which >>>>> was probably what he had in mind when making the claim. >>>>> >>>>>> "It is a pistol let off at the ear; not a feather to tickle >>>>>> the intellect." (From "The Worst Puns Are The Best", in >>>>>> *Last Essays of Elia*, 1833.) >>>>> >>>>> Most theories of humour talk about confounding the reader or >>>>> the listener's expectations. The pun is unsubtle. >>>> >>>> Your credentials as a humour expert are, how can I say, not > immediately evident. How about making a better one? >>> >>> That's okay. You don't get my jokes, and I find your jokes a >>> little > too obvious. >>> >>> As defenses go it, it's a fairly obvious, and Jamie will probably >>> claim that I pinched it from him. >>> >>> Meanwhile, here's something I posted a while ago - 11th May 1997 > > <snipped joke> > >> Well, if your last attempt at a joke was over 16 years ago, I >> obviously have a treat in store sometime around 2030. I can't >> wait. ;) > > If you've missed the more recent ones, you may have an even longer > wait. Describing the 1997 post as an "attempt at a joke" suggests > that you might not have recognised it as a joke back then, which > would argue for a severely stunted sense of humour. It was selected > on the basis that it was obviously intended to be a joke, and would > more or less work when shorn of context. >I'm happy to learn from anybody. Since I obviously didn't appreciate your 16-year-old comedy classic as much as it deserved, would you deploy your well-honed humour-critical skills and explain a humorous post of yours from, say, the last month or two? I mean, one that's intentionally funny. ;) Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Reply by ●December 13, 20132013-12-13
On Friday, 13 December 2013 08:39:38 UTC+11, Jim Thompson wrote:> On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:32:13 -0800 (PST), George Herold=20 > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:=20 > >On Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:29:22 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote: > >> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 04:43:34 UTC+11, George Herold wrote:==20> >> =20 > ><snip> > >> > Re puns: For those sci-fi types that enjoy puns check out =20 > >> =20 > >> > "Callahans Crosstime Saloon" by Spider Robinson. =20 > >>=20 > >> > (later volumes in the series move from the bar to a "cathouse", and =get a little more racy.)=20> >>=20 > >> I never could understand why Analog Science Fact and Fiction published=Spider Robinson's stuff. Even by the depressing standards of hard science = fiction it was tediously contentless.> >=20 > >Do you mean science content? If so I'll agree, plenty of human content =though. You probably don't like Theodore Sturgeon either then. No hard sc= ience, plenty of emotion/love. "Need" may be my favorite short story. (My= fiction reading has taken a big detour into Sturgeon lately.) =20> >> I stopped subscribing to Analog around the time Spider Robinson became=a regular contributor, after being a faithful subscriber from the late 195= 0's.=20>=20 > Does anyone care what Slowman subscribes to or not? > =20 > Must be a sad life, being so sour in your old age.Whereas Jim can't work out how to balance his Chinese-made chandelier, and = has to post an appeal for help here, rather than to a user-group specialise= d in catering to bad taste in the home. And Jim's idea of a positive outlook on life - which includes telling the F= BI about my dangerously anti-American attitudes, and threatening to shoot h= is more liberal neighbours when the US fall apart - isn't one that strikes = me as one that I'd want to emulate. And, just for Phil Hobb's benefit, this is designed as a mildly comic respo= nse. --=20 Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●December 13, 20132013-12-13
On Friday, 13 December 2013 15:40:26 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote:> On 12/12/2013 11:24 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:=20 > > On Friday, 13 December 2013 14:58:03 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote: > >> On 12/12/2013 10:02 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>> On Friday, 13 December 2013 03:00:13 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote:=20 > >>>> On 12/12/2013 1:00 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 02:55:42 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs > >>>>> wrote:=20 > >>>>>> On 12/11/2013 12:50 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:=20 > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 15:23:45 UTC+11, Maynard=20 > >>>>>>> A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:=20 > >>>>>>>> In article=20 > >>>>>>>> <8b4098c1-b5c5-4ebd-8bdb-62a8d5eb7fab@googlegroups.com>,=20 > bill.sloman@gmail.com says...=20 > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 11:30:50 UTC+11, > >>>>>>>>> Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:=20 > >>>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>>> <06c63953-1cfd-4cc5-87d7-4db8581f53f1@googlegroups.com>,=20 > bill.sloman@gmail.com says... > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 10:42:39 UTC+11, > >>>>>>>>>>> Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> In article=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> <35oda9llspshpn4ol1omaagt9tsif0npuo@4ax.com>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> DLU1 @DecadentLinuxUser.org says... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:00:42 -0800 (PST),=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:=20 <snip> =20> >> Well, if your last attempt at a joke was over 16 years ago, I obviousl=y have a treat in store sometime around 2030. I can't wait. ;)=20> >=20 > > If you've missed the more recent ones, you may have an even longer wait=. Describing the 1997 post as an "attempt at a joke" suggests that you migh= t not have recognised it as a joke back then, which would argue for a sever= ely stunted sense of humour. It was selected on the basis that it was obvio= usly intended to be a joke, and would more or less work when shorn of conte= xt.=20>=20 > I'm happy to learn from anybody. Since I obviously didn't appreciate=20your 16-year-old comedy classic as much as it deserved, would you deploy=20 your well-honed humour-critical skills and explain a humorous post of your= s from, say, the last month or two?> =20 > I mean, one that's intentionally funny. ;)Admiral John Arbuthnot "Jacky" Fisher once said "Never apologise, never exp= lain". What you didn't get first time around won't look any funnier after you've b= een told what you should have seen, and you won't like me any better for hi= gh-lighting your deficiencies. And since you are even more of a nit-picking= sod than I am, there'd probably be a long and boring follow-up discussion = about why it wasn't really as funny as I thought it was, of which this woul= d be about the third salvo. --=20 Bill Sloman, Sydney Noted added for Phil Hobb's benefit. This was intended to be mildly funny.
Reply by ●December 13, 20132013-12-13
On 12/13/2013 12:01 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:> On Friday, 13 December 2013 15:40:26 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote: >> On 12/12/2013 11:24 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On Friday, 13 December 2013 14:58:03 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>> On 12/12/2013 10:02 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>> On Friday, 13 December 2013 03:00:13 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 12/12/2013 1:00 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 02:55:42 UTC+11, Phil >>>>>>> Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/11/2013 12:50 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 15:23:45 UTC+11, >>>>>>>>> Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>> <8b4098c1-b5c5-4ebd-8bdb-62a8d5eb7fab@googlegroups.com>, >> >>>>>>>>>>bill.sloman@gmail.com says...>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 11:30:50 UTC+11, >>>>>>>>>>> Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>>> <06c63953-1cfd-4cc5-87d7-4db8581f53f1@googlegroups.com>, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>bill.sloman@gmail.com says...>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 10:42:39 >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <35oda9llspshpn4ol1omaagt9tsif0npuo@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>DLU1 @DecadentLinuxUser.org says...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:00:42 -0800 (PST), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us: > > <snip> > >>>> Well, if your last attempt at a joke was over 16 years ago, I >>>> obviously have a treat in store sometime around 2030. I >>>> can't wait. ;) >>> >>> If you've missed the more recent ones, you may have an even >>> longer wait. Describing the 1997 post as an "attempt at a joke" >>> suggests that you might not have recognised it as a joke back >>> then, which would argue for a severely stunted sense of humour. >>> It was selected on the basis that it was obviously intended to be >>> a joke, and would more or less work when shorn of context. >> >> I'm happy to learn from anybody. Since I obviously didn't >> appreciate > your 16-year-old comedy classic as much as it deserved, would you > deploy your well-honed humour-critical skills and explain a humorous > post of yours from, say, the last month or two? >> >> I mean, one that's intentionally funny. ;) > > Admiral John Arbuthnot "Jacky" Fisher once said "Never apologise, > never explain". > > What you didn't get first time around won't look any funnier after > you've been told what you should have seen, and you won't like me any > better for high-lighting your deficiencies. And since you are even > more of a nit-picking sod than I am, there'd probably be a long and > boring follow-up discussion about why it wasn't really as funny as I > thought it was, of which this would be about the third salvo.Hilarious! Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Reply by ●December 13, 20132013-12-13
On Friday, 13 December 2013 16:08:28 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote:> On 12/13/2013 12:01 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:=20 > > On Friday, 13 December 2013 15:40:26 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote: > >> On 12/12/2013 11:24 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>> On Friday, 13 December 2013 14:58:03 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote: > >>>> On 12/12/2013 10:02 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:=20 > >>>>> On Friday, 13 December 2013 03:00:13 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs=20 > >>>>> wrote:=20 > >>>>>> On 12/12/2013 1:00 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:=20 > >>>>>>> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 02:55:42 UTC+11, Phil > >>>>>>> Hobbs wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 12/11/2013 12:50 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 15:23:45 UTC+11, > >>>>>>>>> Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:=20 > >>>>>>>>>> In article=20 > >>>>>>>>>> <8b4098c1-b5c5-4ebd-8bdb-62a8d5eb7fab@googlegroups.com>,=20 > bill.sloman@gmail.com says...=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 11:30:50 UTC+11,=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>>>>> <06c63953-1cfd-4cc5-87d7-4db8581f53f1@googlegroups.com>, =20 > bill.sloman@gmail.com says... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 10:42:39 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <35oda9llspshpn4ol1omaagt9tsif0npuo@4ax.com>=20 > DLU1 @DecadentLinuxUser.org says...=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:00:42 -0800 (PST),=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us:=20 > >=20 > > <snip>=20 > >=20 > >>>> Well, if your last attempt at a joke was over 16 years ago, I obviou=sly have a treat in store sometime around 2030. I can't wait. ;)=20> >>>=20 > >>> If you've missed the more recent ones, you may have an even longer wa=it. Describing the 1997 post as an "attempt at a joke" does suggest that yo= u might not have recognised it as a joke back then, which would argue for a= severely stunted sense of humour.> >>> > >>> It was selected on the basis that it was obviously intended to be a j=oke, and would more or less work when shorn of context.=20> >> > >> I'm happy to learn from anybody. Since I obviously didn't appreciateyour 16-year-old comedy classic as much as it deserved, would you deploy yo= ur well-honed humour-critical skills and explain a humorous post of yours = from, say, the last month or two?> >> > >> I mean, one that's intentionally funny. ;)=20 > > > > Admiral John Arbuthnot "Jacky" Fisher once said "Never apologise, never=explain".> > > > What you didn't get first time around won't look any funnier after you'=ve been told what you should have seen, and you won't like me any better fo= r high-lighting your deficiencies. And since you are even more of a nit-pic= king sod than I am, there'd probably be a long and boring follow-up discuss= ion about why it wasn't really as funny as I thought it was, of which this = would be about the third salvo.> =20 > Hilarious!Sarcasm. And cheap sarcasm at that, since you didn't specify what specifica= lly you were being sarcastic about.=20 I started my post with an incomplete quotation. A more complete quote is "W= hatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power a= nd magic in it. Begin it now. Never contradict. Never explain. Never apolog= ise.=94 Using it in this context was intentionally funny. I'm not altogether surpri= sed that you didn't get that particular joke. Even John Woodgate might have= missed it. --=20 Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●December 13, 20132013-12-13
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> writes:> On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:32:13 -0800 (PST), George Herold > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > >>On Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:29:22 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 04:43:34 UTC+11, George Herold wrote: >>> >><snip> >>> > Re puns: For those sci-fi types that enjoy puns check out >>> >>> > "Callahans Crosstime Saloon" by Spider Robinson. >>> >>> > (later volumes in the series move from the bar to a "cathouse", and get a little more racy.) >>> >>> I never could understand why Analog Science Fact and Fiction >>> published Spider Robinson's stuff. Even by the depressing standards >>> of hard science fiction it was tediously contentless. >> >>Do you mean science content? If so I'll agree, plenty of human >> content though. You probably don't like Theodore Sturgeon either >> then. No hard science, plenty of emotion/love. "Need" may be my >> favorite short story. (My fiction reading has taken a big detour >> into Sturgeon lately.)I liked Spider Robinsons stuff too, subscribed to Analog (ha - on topic) for a couple of decades until recently.>> >>George H. >>> >>> I stopped subscribing to Analog around the time Spider Robinson >>> became a regular contributor, after being a faithful subscriber >>> from the late 1950's. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Bill Sloman, Sydney > > Does anyone care what Slowman subscribes to or not?Why not, you get to tell everyone about your chandelier, what temperature it is outside your house today, what you are having for tea tonight etc etc.> Must be a sad life, being so sour in your old age.You tell us :) -- John Devereux
