Hey Nancy!

Oct 12 10:25 07, Nancy Backus wrote to MAURICE KINAL:

 NB> Hummm...  I was using the word faulty in the sense of not quite up to
 NB> par,

Understood but I am not convinced it applies to my former situation no
matter how it is defined.  I think what was was as it was and thus not
faulty.  If it could have been fixed, and required fixing then it probably
would have been fixed but instead I believe we both found ourselves in a
different place and moved on from there.

 NB> does make some sense...  in a rather convoluted way, to be sure, but 
 NB> a
 NB> sort of sense nonetheless... :)

Convolution is my forte.  :-)

 MK>> My claim was the  second has all the charm.  :-)

 NB> OH... THAT theory...  :)    I doubt that charm has much to do with
 NB> staying power, though... ;)

It probably doesn't hurt though.

 NB> My son claims to be the first, second 
 NB> AND
 NB> third... perhaps that's why he's got all that charm (according to 
 NB> your
 NB> theory)??  ;)

Tell him, "Nice try!", but according to my theory it holds no
water since he is only one and thus only first.  Any charm there was to
inherit you obviously kept for yourself.

 NB>  Wrt my siblings, though, the most charming is my baby
 NB> brother... #8...

Which is 4x2, so my theory could still be applicable.  He quadrupled sychronicity.

Life is good,
Maurice

--- Msged/LNX 6.2.0