-=> Quoting Maurice Kinal to Nancy Backus on 26 Oct 09  15:49:34 <=-

 MK> Hey Nancy!

 MK> Totally screwed up and posted this in the wrong echo.  Managed to
 MK> recover it and will paste it here.  I think this is a sign that I am

I noticed where it got (several BBS's I frequent also have that echo)
although it isn't one I normally read.  So I did grab a piece of that
echo, on a bbs that also had DADS, just in case you didn't figure out
that it'd gone astray...  ;)  (That, actually, was more of a trick than
I'd anticipated... seemed that most of my places that I usually answer
from had only one or only the other... what I planned to do was to use
the BW reader to answer to a different echo... but that means I need
them both on the same bbs...)  Anyway, you're here in DADS now, so I can
answer straightforward on my usual venue...  ;)

 MK> not meant to be a web based type hacker.  Oh well, maybe in the next
 MK> life. 

Did you figure out how the reply got from DADS to FTSC discussion?  They
didn't seem to be next to each other anywhere I found them both... ;)

 MK> Okay.  To be honest I was never really worried but the first time I
 MK> heard that we're supposed to have 29 dimensions of compatibilty it did
 MK> pique my curiousity as to what exactly a dimension of compatibilty
 MK> could possibly be.  After that I wondered how anyone could possibly
 MK> come up with 29 being the magic number of dimensions that could
 MK> potentially be used to match couples.  Also the example couples they
 MK> use in their commercials don't seem to match dimensionally speaking,
 MK> but perhaps that is the secret of matching.  Some sort of 29 parallel
 MK> dimensions I suppose but they don't exactly say that.  I think your
 MK> angular component makes more sense and possibly far more practical in
 MK> the matching business. 

Parallel dimensions could explain some of them, for sure... :) 
Personally, I've always just seen those things as being advertising
speak... Say something that sounds impressive, even if it is clearly
made up gobble-de-gook...  ;)  Can you tell the low opinion I have of ad
writers in general...?  ;)

 > you could only hear them, not see them

 MK> Yes but they were the official London Guy Fawkes fireworks and I
 MK> wasn't there but could hear them as they happened.  How many people
 MK> whose birthday coincides can make that claim?  Mind you given the
 MK> population of London, as well as the rest of England, I would assume
 MK> there is at least one Londoner who has me beat.  I am unsure as to how
 MK> well the rest of England marks the occasion and can only confirm that
 MK> London has fireworks on that day, or at least they used to. 

Oh, yes...  I'm sure there are a number of others that share your
birthday, as well as Guy Fawkes day...   I'd have to check with the
English part of my family as to whether other parts of England also
celebrate with fireworks.

 MK> Fawkes Day. In Ladysmith they had at least one "Brits on the Beach"
 MK> day but it wasn't on that day and I haven't noticed any advertisement
 MK> for "Brits on the Beach" since that one time so I cannot
confirm if it
 MK> is an annual event. I think it probably is. 

Google for it?  (That's the advice I keep hearing for everything... )

 > I never claimed to have a typically straight-forward brain

 MK> As long as it isn't too twisted I don't forsee a problem.

Good enough.  :)

ttyl     neb

... Accurate observation is often called cynicism.
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.20