On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 11:11:36AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > At 08:17 AM 8/15/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: > >On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 08:28:48PM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: > >> Erik Reuter wrote: > >> >On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 05:53:18PM +0900, G. D. Akin wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >>P.S. Dang! I went off-subject on my own post. > >> > > >> > > >> >Do you know the etymology of the word "dang"? > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Alliteration of the word damn. > >> > > > >Dang Doug! Did you know if you start with Doug, draw a line to the right > >of the "o", and rotate the "u" 180 degrees, you end up with "Dang"? > > > No, in that case you get "Do—ng." Or maybe "Do|ng", "Do/ng", or "Do\ng", > depending on how you interpret the second step of the instructions.
Okay, if the second step is too difficult, you can just skip that step.
No, it's just that if you draw _any_ kind of line _anywhere_ to the right of the "o", doing so does not transform the "o" into an "a".
You still end up with an interesting word!
Indeed, I must say that it rings a bell with me.
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
