RS> >  BN> In the beginning there was the Trekkie. The Trekkie went Whole 
wg
RS>Not all Trekkies went "whole hawg".
Righto.  The ones that didn't became Trekkers. 
RS> >  BN> the -kies coined the term *-ker* as a means of differentiation, &
RS>Not all -kies like the term -ker, either.
Of course not -- they're embarrassed. 
RS> >  Ah HAH. So I'm _not_ a trekkie, just a mere trekker. Of course, there
RS>Not true. You can remain a trekkie, if you want. Not *all* trekkies are
RS>considered as having no life. 
Uh, yes, they are, I'se afeared, unless the definitions have
recently been altered by revisionist historians when I wasn't
looking. 
RS> > the inevitable question: Is Bill's word canon or non-canon???
RS>Uh-oh. Duck and cover. :)
Nah, I knows this kid -- she hokay.  Hokey, too, but that's another
thread for another day. 
RS> >  And just what _does_ Zorch say on the issue?
RS>Yes, what does the EchoLongWindedOne have to say on this issue?
'Scuse me whilst I go brew up a dozen or so pots of coffee.
hehehehehehehehe
--- JMail-H 2.80d
---------------