Re: Mirror particles form new matter
David said: What? They can't even call them anti-matter? Now they're mirror particles? The level of science writing seems to be constantly sinking. : ( When I read the headline I got quite excited as mirror matter means something quite different to antimatter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So Austin
Julia wrote: The thing is, the rank-and-file who were fighting weren't fighting for slavery, they were fighting for their homeland. State loyalty was higher in the south, and national loyalty lower. So yes, the main impetus of the war was the preservation of slavery, but that's not the reason that was in the minds of many of the people doing the actual fighting. I mean, my great-great grandfather didn't charge up a hill with Pickett at Gettysburg for the sake of slavery, but for the sake of Virginia. But it's not as if anyone was out to come and steal the homeland. I don't pretend to speak for your Great-great grandfather, but I have no doubt that there was a general awareness that slavery was central to the conflict. I don't mean to disparage the gallantry of anyone's ancestors, but the presence and the prominence of that monument and the way it seeks to glorify and justify the cause when the cause is an excuse to continue the institution of slavery is offensive. It has to be particularly galling to African Americans. I saw no monument that celebrates the emancipation, yet it was a watershed event in the history of our country and must be the most important event in African American history. How can a person feel like they are an equal partner in government if the first thing they see when they enter the grounds of the State's most important icon is the glorification of a cause whose purpose was to keep _their_ ancestors enslaved? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Update on amnesty battle
On Sep 15, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: I got this in my email today. Apparently someone is quite stirred up over an upcoming bill. I think I found the solution: Do you want fewer emails or to UNSUBSCRIBE http://www.numbersusa.com/user? authkey=48bc24b4fb2408d571869dcfcaf84895 from receiving any emails? There you go. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 16/09/2007, at 6:21 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Now, Charlie Rob and I do not live in London, so our experiences do not directly translate. No, but I did grow up in London, and used a bike pretty much exclusively there too. And it was likewise far quicker by bike there too, because I could use a road that was closed to motor traffic to cut about half a mile out of the journey... Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mirror particles form new matter
- Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 1:35 AM Subject: Re: Mirror particles form new matter David said: What? They can't even call them anti-matter? Now they're mirror particles? The level of science writing seems to be constantly sinking. : ( When I read the headline I got quite excited as mirror matter means something quite different to antimatter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter And here I've been thinking the BBC was one of the better news orgs. xponent Twice Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mirror particles form new matter
- Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 1:35 AM Subject: Re: Mirror particles form new matter David said: What? They can't even call them anti-matter? Now they're mirror particles? The level of science writing seems to be constantly sinking. : ( When I read the headline I got quite excited as mirror matter means something quite different to antimatter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter OK, so I did a minimal search on mirror matter and there are lots of links, mostly for academic papers and news articles that explain very little. So.we know what happens when you combine matter with anti-matter. I expect you get practically the same result when you mix mirror matter with mirror anti-matter. So if you mix normal matter with mirror anti-matter would the result be: a: Nothing because they are mutually weakly interacting? or b: a similar reaction to matter/anti-matter mixing only with a different particle emission? or c: other? xponent Beyond My Scope Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fw: Mirror particles form new matter
At 10:14 PM Saturday 9/15/2007, Robert Seeberger wrote: I wonder if someone has written a story featuring rasers? What would they be useful for? Shaving? NASCAR? An non-electronic version of an e-raser? Puns `R' Us Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mirror particles form new matter
- Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 10:29 AM Subject: Re: Mirror particles form new matter Rob said: So if you mix normal matter with mirror anti-matter would the result be: a: Nothing because they are mutually weakly interacting? or b: a similar reaction to matter/anti-matter mixing only with a different particle emission? or c: other? I'm pretty sure that the answer is (a). Interactions in quantum field theory can be written as sums of Feynman diagrams, each of which is made up of lines representing particles and vertices at which the particles interact. Each type of force has characteristic vertices. For example, the electromagnetic force has a vertex with two charged particles and a photon. This can either represent a single charged particle emitting a photon or a particle and its anti-particle annihilating to form a photon. So, for example, an electron and a positron can annihilate at a vertex forming a photon. (To conserve energy and momentum, you need at least two vertices resulting in two photons in the whole diagram.) Thus, no interaction vertices means no interaction, and hence no reaction and no particle emission. Thanks! I had suspected that since gravity works equally on both types of particles there might be some interaction. But on reflection, I know that gravity is multi-billions of times weaker than electromagnetism so one would have to find a way to force mirror anti-matter to interact with normal matter, if it could indeed be done at all. xponent Always With The Questions Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fw: Mirror particles form new matter
On 9/16/2007 9:54:23 AM, Ronn! Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At 10:14 PM Saturday 9/15/2007, Robert Seeberger wrote: I wonder if someone has written a story featuring rasers? What would they be useful for? Shaving? NASCAR? An non-electronic version of an e-raser? Puns `R' Us Maru To be honest, I expected cellphone. G xponent Normal Matter Communication Device Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mirror particles form new matter
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... David said: What? They can't even call them anti-matter? Now they're mirror particles? The level of science writing seems to be constantly sinking. : ( When I read the headline I got quite excited as mirror matter means something quite different to antimatter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter OK, so I did a minimal search on mirror matter and there are lots of links, mostly for academic papers and news articles that explain very little. ... rob Rob-- Actually, I think the wikipedia article is excellent. It doesn't go that far, but how much did you want to know about something that may or may not even exist? By the way, I think this is a very important role for Wikipedia. It acts as a central place for people to argue about what various terms mean. If one reads further down, the article mentions that some people use mirror matter to mean antimatter. But then it makes clear that they are definitely in the minority. And I argue that they ARE, since otherwise they would have edited back at the Wikipedia article. ---David Hey, wasn't there some book where gaser meant graviton laser? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mirror particles form new matter
- Original Message - From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 11:09 AM Subject: Re: Mirror particles form new matter Rob-- Actually, I think the wikipedia article is excellent. It doesn't go that far, but how much did you want to know about something that may or may not even exist? Oh, I definately read the entire Wiki-article, but as such things go, I was curious to see more. I realize that I most likely appear to be an ignorant hick to some here, and it is true that I am ignorant, frequently ignorant. But I do not believe I am willfully ignorant. I spend at least a couple of hours just about everyday reading articles here and there about subjects that capture my interest, doing google searches to chase down some basic facts, and otherwise satisfying my hungry curiousity. I'm rarely satisfied on that account, there is always something new to learn about. Mirror Matter is interesting because it is a good candidate for the elusive Dark Matter. From here, it seems to be a good fit for the missing 90% of the universe.G By the way, I think this is a very important role for Wikipedia. It acts as a central place for people to argue about what various terms mean. If one reads further down, the article mentions that some people use mirror matter to mean antimatter. But then it makes clear that they are definitely in the minority. And I argue that they ARE, since otherwise they would have edited back at the Wikipedia article. I agree! I normally defend Wikipedia for similar reasons. ---David Hey, wasn't there some book where gaser meant graviton laser? That sounds familiar. Perhaps Baxter? I don't see a source better than: http://tenser.typepad.com/tenser_said_the_tensor/2007/07/review-brave-ne.html graser (a gamma ray laser): Quick! Name the science fiction author least likely to have first used such a hard-core mil-SF term in 1974! Give up? Answer: Harlan Ellison, in his excellently-titled Adrift Just off Islets of Langerhans: Latitude 38°54'N, Longitude 77°00'13W. You could have knocked me over with a feather. However, it doesn't appear that he coined the term, or that it was even originally from science fiction; it goes back at least as far as U.S. patent 3,234,099 (page 6, left column), which was filed in 1963. I think there's also an additional sense of this word floating around in SF, meaning 'gravity laser' or 'graviton laser' (whatever that's supposed to mean, physics-wise), but I couldn't come up with any citations to prove it. Nice page there. Interesting enough! xponent Gaser Graser Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mirror particles form new matter
On 9/16/2007 12:48:51 PM, Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Ha! What a hoot! http://baker.house.gov/html/content.cfm?id=350 xponent Participants Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mirror particles form new matter
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Robert Seeberger wrote: Oh, I definately read the entire Wiki-article, but as such things go, I was curious to see more. I realize that I most likely appear to be an ignorant hick to some here, and it is true that I am ignorant, frequently ignorant. But I do not believe I am willfully ignorant. No, you're not willfully ignorant, you cheerfully admit your ignorance and try to remedy it. :) This is one of the things I like about you. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mirror particles form new matter
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Robert Seeberger wrote: On 9/16/2007 12:48:51 PM, Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Ha! What a hoot! http://baker.house.gov/html/content.cfm?id=350 xponent Participants Maru rob I love the bit at the end: EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT: ANYTHING THAT OCCURS ANYWHERE AFFECTS EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE. IMAGINE, THE INTELLECT OF DR. ALBERT EINSTEIN AT WORK IN LIVINGSTON PARISH, LOUISIANA. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
Please don't respond to me off-list. If you have something to say to me you can say it in front of everyone. On 9/16/07, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin, Responding off list so that this rant doesn't ruin a perfectly interesting conversation. Quoting from the dictionary is not citing your sources, it is using an idiotic rhetorical tool. Fine. Ignore it and get to the point. I have no beef with Ronn, but I'm no fan of spelling or grammar-weenie behavior, either. On the other hand, you did spell non- sequitur wrong and you used it improperly. I may have spelt wrong - a spelling mistake? on the internet? - but I certainly didn't use it improperly. If not, you wrote so poorly that I and others seem to have thought so. Non sequitur: doesn't follow. What didn't follow what? The proposal may well be a non-starter, but it is scarcely a non- sequitur. As to the topic at hand, If a world-class city like London wants to ban private cars, it probably needs to take on the responsibility of providing alternative transportation for those who simply cannot, for health reasons, walk the distances required. Oh my God, really!? Don't be a twit, Martin. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mirror particles form new matter
At 10:17 AM Sunday 9/16/2007, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 1:35 AM Subject: Re: Mirror particles form new matter David said: What? They can't even call them anti-matter? Now they're mirror particles? The level of science writing seems to be constantly sinking. : ( When I read the headline I got quite excited as mirror matter means something quite different to antimatter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter OK, so I did a minimal search on mirror matter and there are lots of links, mostly for academic papers and news articles that explain very little. So.we know what happens when you combine matter with anti-matter. I expect you get practically the same result when you mix mirror matter with mirror anti-matter. So if you mix normal matter with mirror anti-matter would the result be: a: Nothing because they are mutually weakly interacting? or b: a similar reaction to matter/anti-matter mixing only with a different particle emission? or c: other? xponent Beyond My Scope Maru rob Does this remind anyone else of Asimov's essay I'm Looking Over a Four-Leaf Clover, first published in the September 1966 FSF and reprinted in the collection _Science, Numbers, and I_? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Lewis Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:36 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Car free London? The conversation went like this: Gary makes a massive strawman about forcing people to walk. Well, technically, the proposal doesn't force people to walk. There could be mass transit on each and every street, I suppose. It's just that any realistic implementation of the proposal would force people who are not capable of walking moderately long distances to do so. I think that the main difference between you and others is that you envision a practical way to have no cars in London without making people walk and others, including me, don't. Or is it that you don't think practical implications are germane? I point out this is massive strawman. Point out implies that your statement is self evidently true. I would like to submit the proposition that you might be wrong. That you are missing something others are seeing. It happens to us allit certainly happens to me. Its not very difficult but it does betray the total lack of logic I have come to expect from Brin-L. Well, you are insulting us with a pretty broad brush here, aren't you? This statement implies that lack of logic is a tautology when someone differs with your reasoning. I really don't think that is true. If you would like, I'll dust off my symbolic logic and show I used logic to arrive at my conclusions. I'm not usually this sarcastic, but I guess it is a bit irksome when someone accuses me of having a total lack of logic just because I differ with themsince it is a significant part of my professional training and day to day work and all. If you think my logic is faulty, I'd very much appreciate a formal analysis of it so I can see where I ere. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
At 10:06 PM Sunday 9/16/2007, Dan Minettte wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Lewis Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:36 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Car free London? The conversation went like this: Gary makes a massive strawman about forcing people to walk. Well, technically, the proposal doesn't force people to walk. There could be mass transit on each and every street, I suppose. It's just that any realistic implementation of the proposal would force people who are not capable of walking moderately long distances to do so. I think that the main difference between you and others is that you envision a practical way to have no cars in London without making people walk and others, including me, don't. If this is the case, I for one would be interested in hearing what that way is, because like Dan I haven't been able to think of a way to do that. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
Folks, I apologize that I wound up the twit. Dave On Sep 16, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Martin Lewis wrote: Please don't respond to me off-list. If you have something to say to me you can say it in front of everyone. On 9/16/07, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin, Responding off list so that this rant doesn't ruin a perfectly interesting conversation. Quoting from the dictionary is not citing your sources, it is using an idiotic rhetorical tool. Fine. Ignore it and get to the point. I have no beef with Ronn, but I'm no fan of spelling or grammar-weenie behavior, either. On the other hand, you did spell non- sequitur wrong and you used it improperly. I may have spelt wrong - a spelling mistake? on the internet? - but I certainly didn't use it improperly. If not, you wrote so poorly that I and others seem to have thought so. Non sequitur: doesn't follow. What didn't follow what? The proposal may well be a non-starter, but it is scarcely a non- sequitur. As to the topic at hand, If a world-class city like London wants to ban private cars, it probably needs to take on the responsibility of providing alternative transportation for those who simply cannot, for health reasons, walk the distances required. Oh my God, really!? Don't be a twit, Martin. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 10:06 PM Sunday 9/16/2007, Dan Minettte wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Lewis Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:36 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Car free London? The conversation went like this: Gary makes a massive strawman about forcing people to walk. Well, technically, the proposal doesn't force people to walk. There could be mass transit on each and every street, I suppose. It's just that any realistic implementation of the proposal would force people who are not capable of walking moderately long distances to do so. I think that the main difference between you and others is that you envision a practical way to have no cars in London without making people walk and others, including me, don't. If this is the case, I for one would be interested in hearing what that way is, because like Dan I haven't been able to think of a way to do that. -- Ronn! :) I will grant this -- my friend who is mobility-impaired to the point of qualifying for a handicap space hangtag, but usually doesn't require a wheelchair, was able to get around Chicago without anything beyond the public transit system. It may be that those of us living in areas that are less densely populated and without terribly good public transit systems really can't grok how good the existing infrastructure in London is. Having never been to London myself (having never been in England, in fact), I couldn't say one way or another. In fact, if you strung the wires for electric trolleys in enough of the Boston area, you could probably do OK there with a similarly draconian proposal if there were an additional plan for people who realy needed door-to-door service, and I have lived within the area served by the MBTA. (Granted, that was 30 years ago, but my mother never needed a car, and never needed a cab except to get to the airport and the doctor's office.) Given how dense a lot of us have been on this topic and having specific objections, however, it might have been nice for someone to explain just what the obvious point we were missing was, instead of dismissing the arguments made without a clear explanation. Assuming someone is in possession of all the facts *and experiences* that you are is a great shortcut to miscommunication. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julia Thompson Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 11:10 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: Car free London? On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 10:06 PM Sunday 9/16/2007, Dan Minettte wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Lewis Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:36 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Car free London? The conversation went like this: Gary makes a massive strawman about forcing people to walk. Well, technically, the proposal doesn't force people to walk. There could be mass transit on each and every street, I suppose. It's just that any realistic implementation of the proposal would force people who are not capable of walking moderately long distances to do so. I think that the main difference between you and others is that you envision a practical way to have no cars in London without making people walk and others, including me, don't. If this is the case, I for one would be interested in hearing what that way is, because like Dan I haven't been able to think of a way to do that. -- Ronn! :) I will grant this -- my friend who is mobility-impaired to the point of qualifying for a handicap space hangtag, but usually doesn't require a wheelchair, was able to get around Chicago without anything beyond the public transit system. I've lived in the Chicago area for about 4 months years ago and have a question. What do you mean by get around Chicago. Is it going to the well traveled areas, or being able to make it from, say, a house in Aurora to one in Geneva in only 20 minutes or so. Or even getting from one to the other without walking a half mile to a bus stop, taking a bus to a central location and then a connecting bus, and spending 1.5 hours on the trip. The proposal specifically stated it wasn't just for central London. Thus, the whole 175 square miles needs to be considered carless. Busses are possible, but one ether has to sit through 50 stops to get from A to B, or use a complex system of transfers. It may be that those of us living in areas that are less densely populated and without terribly good public transit systems really can't grok how good the existing infrastructure in London is. Having never been to London myself (having never been in England, in fact), I couldn't say one way or another. I've been in London a few times (say 20) both in inner London and elsewhere. It seems to me that, if one can walk 4-6 blocks, inner London can be done efficiently via the Tube. But, we had to take cars for other parts of London because using public transportation would just take foreverand would require a good walk. If this is non-representative, I'd be curious to see what I missed. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minettte Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: Car free London? in Geneva in only 20 minutes or so. Or even getting from one to the other without walking a half mile to a bus stop, taking a bus to a central ^^^ by location and then a connecting bus, and spending 1.5 hours on the trip. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
why are cars used?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jon louis mann Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 8:28 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Car free London? there are ways rapid transportation can be provided for masses of people if it was cheap and fast enough enough to be a viable alternative to the family car. there are reasons why our consumer economy in america chose to go with automobiles rather than other means of transportation Are you thinking of the commonly understood reasons like cars being better suited to peoples needs in a large, relatively (compared to Europe) sparsely populated country, or some other reasons. . the fact is that the oil and automobile industries are critical to global capitalism and i do not see those powerful lobbies allowing alternative modes of transportation to develop. Are you arguing that oil and the automobile industries grew to supplant coal and the railroads because they employed much more skilled lobbyists than were employed by much bigger industries? In 1900, in the days of the Robber Barons and monopolies, Coal was King and far outweighed oil (in terms of BTUs of energy provided). There were only 5000 cars total, virtually all mechanized transportation involved railroads (including electric railroads in cities. Yet, there were 2 million miles of roads, and 200,000 miles of rail. People didn't travel much, by today's standards, only a few hundred miles/year per person, including subway and trolley car rides. Coal and Railroads owners had far more money at their disposal before 1930 than did Petroleum and Auto Makers. Yet, they lost out. It can't _just_ be money. we just can not stop using fossil burning vehicles over night, any more than we can pull out of iraq over night. i wish there was a way but the vested interests in maintaining the status quo at any cost are just too powerful. I've seen this argument repeatedly from you. Do you think that, in capitalism, the most important market force is the power to control governments? It sounds that we to me. what i think will bring it about is a massive world wide natural disaster brought on by continued human accelerated environmental destruction causing out of control and rapid climate change that would make katrina and the indonesian tsunami look like a mild weather I'd like to see the evidence that will be anything approaching a collapse. Historical data indicates to me that a disaster on the order of a massive asteroid hitting the earth is behind collapses. the other extreme would be for the earth to be devoid of all forms of life, or perhaps crossing the anaerobic/aerobic threshold with simple celled organisms alone surviving. What in the world would cause that? Knowledge is Power What do you think knowledge is? (besides power) :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: why are cars used?
'Cuz new ones are just too darned expensive! -- Ronn! :P Professional Smart-Aleck. Do Not Attempt. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: why are cars used?
On Sep 16, 2007, at 9:44 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: 'Cuz new ones are just too darned expensive! You know, I'm drinking a pretty fine port here, and a spit-take on my MacBook Pro was definitely not what I needed... Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: why are cars used?
At 12:03 AM Monday 9/17/2007, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 16, 2007, at 9:44 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: 'Cuz new ones are just too darned expensive! You know, I'm drinking a pretty fine port here, and a spit-take on my MacBook Pro was definitely not what I needed... Dave One would think that by now anyone who has been on this list very long would know the danger of eating or drinking while reading list mail . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
