> Do you understand how to use the subject header in a
> discussion list? The whole point of having a subject
> header is to be able to change the subject. If the
> subject header has a changed subject, then you might
> want to consider whether the subject may have been
> changed. Or at least modified to distinguish it from
> the subject you were discussing.
Ooops my bad. I thought because you addressed the post to Robert and
quoted parts of my earlier post you were actually replying to me.
>
> It makes the process of having a discussion quite a bit more
> tedious.
>
Tell me about it. Especially with people like you and me who enjoy writing
these long posts and wander off the subject to throw in entertaining
trivia about Hannibal and Jesus...
> I'm a bit perplexed when I try to reply just to you,
> since your e-mail address is "nulldev" and I wonder
> if there is any inbox for that address?
Actually you seem to be mistaking 'nulldev' for #Dev_Null ?
Of course the email address must have at one time lead to somewhere when I
first signed up, because there is a verification procedure, is there not?
Also, if mailings from the list are bounced back too often, the account is
actually disabled by the list admin.
>
> Gosh, Robert, it isn't all about you. Sometimes
> people discuss related or tangential issues.
>
As I said, my bad. I'll remember that a post starting with Dear Robert and
quoting parts of my earlier post doesn't imply that it concerns my
ramblings. Silly old me. I my ego, you know...
> > (1)
> > Why is it that people on the list like to compare
> > apples with pears
>
> Well, they are more closely related than, say, apples
> and bananas, or crystal fruit and coconut. The idiom
> is "apples and oranges" for a reason.
Well, you are indeed comparing apples and oranges, at times, most others
compare apples with pears here. Two things that are very similar but not
really the same. It was actually supposed to be a clever variation of the
idiom, but it obviously failed miserably.
>
> And it seems to have escaped you that Rome destroyed
> Carthage ... burned their libraries and listened ...
>
Sounds like Baghdad on CNN... Serious, the fact that the Romans disposed
of Carthago (without which there would have never been a Roman empire to
begin with) did not destroy Phoenicia per say. Not only did Phoenician
trading posts, even cities survive in many Europena countries ("Venice"),
the language of the Phoenicians seeped into the languages of the Celts and
Saxxons just as much as into Latin (The goddess Car/Cat who gave Carthago
her name can be found in the root of many 'imported' English words), and
Phoenician art and architecture heavily influenced what was created
elsewhere for centuries.
The reason I admire Phoenicia is simply because they succeeded as traders
and merchants, scientists and artisans whithout heavy use of military
might - compared to the other nations of the day who where pretty much at
war with someone or another non-stop.
Sorr, I'll reply to your points at a later time as well, but something
just came up.
Cheers,
Robert.
budget & privacy website hosting
http://www.cyberica.net
budget & privacy domain registrations + mail
http://www.u2planet.com/cfdomaintrust.html
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s)
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common
viruses.
