OT (mostly)

I will be off CLC for a little over a w.  For those of you having a holid
ay,
have a good one.

If anyone is interested, I will be attending the International Gay Square Da
nce
Convention.  See:

http://www.wishuponathar.org/

On the unlikely event that any of the "lurkers" (or participants) are also g
oing
to be there, see you this wend.

P.S.  Yes, there are "gay square dancers" - probably about as common as "gay
republicans" - but we DO (former not latter for "we") do exist!!!

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

In article <Epuog.46590$Bh2.4142@fe07.news.easynews.com>,
William M. Klein <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>I will be off CLC for a little over a w.

Take your time and go in good health, Mr Klein.

[snip]

>If anyone is interested, I will be attending the International Gay Square D
ance
>Convention.  See:
>
>     http://www.wishuponathar.org/

Best wishes for a safe voyage and a prosperous return... but causes me to
wonder.  If this is where the International gathering for Gay Square
Dancers then where and when might be a similar gathering for the Gay
Hep-cat ones?

23-skidoo and a vo-dee-oh-doh!

DD

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:23:28 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>Best wishes for a safe voyage and a prosperous return... but causes me to
>wonder.  If this is where the International gathering for Gay Square
>Dancers then where and when might be a similar gathering for the Gay
>Hep-cat ones?

How about square gay dancers?

Posted Via mcse.ms Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mcse.ms

In article <c515a29plrjje4hpc4312mspnkfgqug8co@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee  <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:23:28 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
> 
>
>How about square gay dancers?

Answering a question with a question, Mr Brazee, is no answer at all.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <c515a29plrjje4hpc4312mspnkfgqug8co@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee  <howard@brazee.net> wrote: 
>
> Answering a question with a question, Mr Brazee, is no answer at all.

You think so?

In article <12a5mgmo7dhto7f@news.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote: 
>
>You think so?

I have no idea how you might go about validating an affirmative response
to that inquiry; one might readily find the pitfall of 'The response to my
question of 'You think so?' was 'Yes'... but one might wonder what anyone
knows about what they think.'

(During my Kollidj Daze I recall hearing one Very Earnest Student tell
another 'You don't *really* think that... you just *think* that you think
that.')

DD

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <12a5mgmo7dhto7f@news.supernews.com>,
> HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: 
>
> I have no idea how you might go about validating an affirmative
> response to that inquiry; one might readily find the pitfall of 'The
> response to my question of 'You think so?' was 'Yes'... but one might
> wonder what anyone knows about what they think.'
>
> (During my Kollidj Daze I recall hearing one Very Earnest Student tell
> another 'You don't *really* think that... you just *think* that you
> think that.')

I'll take that as a Pepsi.

In article <12a5teie0l50l0a@news.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote: 

[snip]
 
>
>I'll take that as a Pepsi.

I fear I've lost my powdered wig and there'll be the devil toupee.

DD

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:03:43 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>(During my Kollidj Daze I recall hearing one Very Earnest Student tell
>another 'You don't *really* think that... you just *think* that you think
>that.')

That's not at all uncommon with political threads (such as that for
illegal aliens).     But I recently read about a study with passionate
political advocates all wired up to see which parts of their brains
were active.   When they talked politics, the emotional part of their
brains were active, but the thinking parts were not.

So sometimes, it is "you don't really think that - you just believe
you think that".

Subtle difference.

Posted Via mcse.ms Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mcse.ms

In article <buo7a21d7epqqh0o2tnvhdc8ul79mirl1l@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee  <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:03:43 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
> 
>
>That's not at all uncommon with political threads (such as that for
>illegal aliens).     But I recently read about a study with passionate
>political advocates all wired up to see which parts of their brains
>were active.   When they talked politics, the emotional part of their
>brains were active, but the thinking parts were not.

The passions are not to be held accountable to reason, or so it has been
said for a while.

>
>So sometimes, it is "you don't really think that - you just believe
>you think that".
>
>Subtle difference.

A subtlety as great as the difference between a (pardon my Latin) 'ratio'
and a 'credo', perhaps.

(Now, for extra points, consider such statements as 'Who would believe
that someone could think that?' or 'Who could think that someone would
believe that?' (further bonus for variations of 'could' and 'would') as
attempts to reconcile two apparently irrational (in the sense of 'having
no (English/geometric sense used here) ratio') conditions.  Use both sides
of the posting, if necessary.)

DD