Hey Nancy!

Oct 17 16:34 07, Nancy Backus wrote to MAURICE KINAL:

 NB> I'll agree that other attributes could also mask problems.  Also that
 NB> the problems are the true badness, not the charmingness itself, 
 NB> except
 NB> in a secondary fashion.

Are you concluding that charm can be used for good and/or evil?

 NB> if
 NB> the charm is merely superficial.

I believe one is either charming or not.  There is no room for
superficiality in this theory and I am sticking to twice or second being
the charm and not third as more widely reported (ie third time is the
charm).

 NB> I think you'd find that I am merely stating family concensus,

Okay.  I can live with that.

 NB> still and all, it could have been a family dynamics thing all the 
 NB> same.

That is the usual suspect methinks.

 MK>> siblings if there were later  siblings.  Might be a phase shift.  If 
 MK>> so then triplets or even greater mutiple  births potentially would 
 MK>> cause a greater shift in phase. 

 NB> True... that could be a possibility... :)

What other possiblities do you think there might be?

 NB> She was the younger of the two, which is why I called her the 
 NB> youngest
 NB> of four.

Then she is in sync with the 'Applied Charm Theory in Modern Family Dynamics'.

 NB> Besides, we are keeping some sort of flow in the echo... whether or 
 NB> not
 NB> this is actually exercise... 

That works for me.

Life is good,
Maurice

--- Msged/LNX 6.2.0