Hey Nancy!

Nov 03 14:17 07, Nancy Backus wrote to Maurice Kinal:

 NB> Hi, this is a re-send of a message I tried to send on October 21st. 
 NB> First the bbs wasn't responding... turned out that his brand-new hard
 NB> drive had died suddenly,

Sounds strange.  Ask him for me what OS formatted it.

 NB> went to a different bbs software, on which my reply packet wouldn't
 NB> work.

Yep.  That can and does happen.

 NB> So, I'm manually resending it... saved and now inserted into this
 NB> message... hope it works this time...  :)

I see it!  Old DOS-think stuff.  At the moment I am doing simular except
with an editor/tosser compiled for linux.  I've been working on some new
stuff but at present it is all on hold.  Fido seems to be stuck in a rut
for the last decade or at least the powers that be are.  Speaking for
myself, I'd much rather concern myself with true compatibilty and ditch the
rest but I seem to be the only one who cares about compatibilty.

 NB>  Just watch, now the 
 NB> original
 NB> will show up out of whatever black hole it's been hiding in!  

Perhaps.  It has been known to happen ad naseum given the software he used
to use.  Also I've seen others suckered into that same software and it is
famous for that sort of thing.

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

 NB> It would appear so... :)

That is what I thought.

 NB> It would also appear that different situations give rise to different
 NB> theories...  

Sounds entirely likely.

 NB>  I've known some situations where the theory might 
 NB> as
 NB> well have been fifth (or some other) time being the charm... 

Not possible since they are out of sync.  They need to take synchronicity
into account or the theory will fail in the testing or experimental phase.


 NB> I
 NB> have certainly known some people for whom the charm is put on, just 
 NB> for
 NB> the occasion...  Of course, that might better be written
"charm", and
 NB> one might argue that if even one perspicacious person can tell that 
 NB> it
 NB> isn't real, that it isn't truly charming...?

I would conclude that it wasn't really charm if the above is true.

 MK>> What other possiblities do you think there might be?

 NB> Depends on whether a multiple-birth set should be considered as one
 NB> person in the line-up for receiving charm, or they are each 
 NB> considered
 NB> in the order of their birth...

That is what occurred to me and I don't know the answer.  However I have
observed that the few twins I have had the pleasure of knowing were
different personality-wise but it appeared to me that their personalities
complimented each other so perhaps both could be in line for charm
depending on the state of their synchronicity.  Tough for me to say given
the lack of hard data on this particular situation.


 NB> IE  single, twins, single, triplets
 NB> could be considered to be 4 birth slots, or it could be single #1, 
 NB> twin1
 NB> #2, twin2 #3, single #4, triplet1 #5, triplet2 #6, and triplet3 #7.  
 NB> Or
 NB> if, within each multiple set, the child is considered in set birth 
 NB> order
 NB> for charm as well as or instead of family birth order.  And probably
 NB> other permutations thereof as well...  

Right.  Also brings up my later concern about the possibilty of a phase
shifting if indeed the order in multiple births doesn't really matter.  For
example if twins were the second, which implies perfect charm
synchronicity, then it is possible that both are charming and synchronicity
is shifted so that later births are no longer subject to being a multiple
of two.  Thus it could be that the fourth, sixth, etc, born would be out of
sync and not charmed simply because of the phase shift posed by multiple
births and the shift is dependent on how many are born in the multiple
birth.  This has potential to really mess up later births charmwise.

 NB> Now, as long as the moderator doesn't think we are going increasing
 NB> off-topic, we should be ok...  ;)

I don't see how it could be off-topic.  We are discussing children which
are what makes dads dads.

Life is good,
Maurice

--- Msged/LNX 6.2.0