Re: Happy 25th to dear Sam Ramey

On Apr 26, 1:24 am, Paul <labin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 26, 12:26 am, LT <LeonardT2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Apr 25, 9:04 pm, Paul <labin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 25, 4:03 pm, LT <LeonardT2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

OTOH, being 'fourthed' should cause no distress, at all; -

=================

Fartso Finkly gives permission:

Go fourth if you like,

OTOH,
*You* may go and get quartered (after being 'drawn'), if you like - or
don't.

but please don't multiply

Oh, but I already have - in human fashion: while your method was
purely spore-style.

Pooooor Katheeeeeee!  :)))))  Deserving a man, and getting Patso, the
fat, bitter, little old U-Nooke instead.  "Say LaVeen', and all
that....  Tsk....tsk....

La Finkly the U-Nooke, and proud OF it, >damit!!!

Oh, c'mon, now....try to
contain yourself, Yoony/Loony!

AFAIK, Len, this is your first mention of >having children.

Hmm....
you may have misread, Paul:  I referred to 'multiplying', in response
to your scummy little cohort's remark about....guess what?  -
'Multiplying'!  :)))))

  There were no mentionings, "first" or otherwise, of any specifics,
now were there?

OTOH, you may not have misread, at all.  In any case, surely you know
such matters are *my* business, not yours, not FatFarts Finkly's
(Poooor Kaaaatheee....), and not the RMO Crotte-Coterie's -unless I
choose to tell you otherwise.

  I will say this much:  Those among you who believe you know the most
- actually know the least.  'Twas ever so....

LT

In the context in which you used it - comparing multiplying in the
human way to "sporulation",

That'd be, as I said, your scummy little cohort's method.

it seems to me that the word pretty
clearly referred to reproduction.

Which, as I"ve already pointed out, is itself a vague term.

Of course it is none of my business >whether you have successfully
produced offspring,

Nor is it any of my business as to whether you and your wife have done
so, and if 'yes' - further details, and if 'no', then 'why not?',
etc.

-"None of my business", as I'd be the first to admit - and do.

But that fact didn't successfully prevent you from asking, - which
prompted my reply.

but that IS what I thought you >meant.

Then, I can only assume that this WAS your thought.

Glad we cleared this up. :)))





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Happy 25th to dear Sam Ramey
    ...  I referred to 'multiplying', in response ... That'd be, as I said, your scummy little cohort's method. ... Nor is it any of my business as to whether you and your wife have done ...
    (rec.music.opera)
  • if you will welcome Founasses final as usual feedbacks, it will completely forbid the gene
    ... We express the compulsory position. ... Just multiplying in a figure ... When did Ali preserve the finish in response to the nutty chicken? ... resident, differs plus it, washing relatively. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: What was original in Einsteins SR theory ?
    ... >|>| particle stationary in the primed and moving in the unprimed frame. ... >What's wrong with multiplying both sides of an inequality with ... >How old was Howard Schilit when he said that to a younger man? ... "He who only sees business in business is a fool." ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Low-pass Step Response
    ... richard miller wrote: ... >> Somebody help me with a reality check. ... I tried to find the step response ... >> And that's just what I'd expect, except for the multiplying factor. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why should -1 multiplied by -1 be plus 1 and not -1
    ... Kurly Gina wrote: ... >response would be almost identical - blank incomprehension as soon as ... So multiplying by -1 is another way of ...
    (sci.logic)