-=> Quoting Maurice Kinal to Nancy Backus on 03 Nov 07  19:23:42 <=-

 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,
 MK> Sounds strange.  Ask him for me what OS formatted it.

I'll try to remember to do so.  He's probably using some sort of
Windows, though, as I recall... :)

 NB>> went to a different bbs software, on which my reply packet wouldn't
 NB>> work.
 MK> Yep.  That can and does happen.

And as I was expecting...  :)   I had* hoped, though, that his manual
tossing thru the software the packet was* meant for would have worked,
at least one of the times he tried it... when that didn't, I fell back
to the old standard, re-do it myself into a packet that should work. :) 

 NB>> So, I'm manually resending it... saved and now inserted into this
 NB>> message... hope it works this time...  :)
 MK> I see it!  Old DOS-think stuff.  At the moment I am doing simular
 MK> except with an editor/tosser compiled for linux.  I've been working on
 MK> some new stuff but at present it is all on hold.  Fido seems to be

Glad it finally worked.  :)  It'll take a lot for me to decide to leave
my trusty DOS... it works when I need it to.  :)

 MK> stuck in a rut for the last decade or at least the powers that be are.
 MK> Speaking for myself, I'd much rather concern myself with true
 MK> compatibilty and ditch the rest but I seem to be the only one who
 MK> cares about compatibilty. 

Innovation is nice... and compatibility, especially backwards, is
essential... especially for people like me that learn one set of magic
spells and don't see any reason to abandon something that still works.

 NB>>  Just watch, now the original
 NB>> will show up out of whatever black hole it's been hiding in!  
 MK> Perhaps.  It has been known to happen ad naseum given the software he
 MK> used to use.  Also I've seen others suckered into that same software
 MK> and it is famous for that sort of thing. 

I'm not sure I know which software you are referring to... the OS, or
the bbs?  And I'm thinking that the black hole was somewhere between his
computer and the bbs/hub he was tossing to... or perhaps AT his hub...
since he tossed them twice, and each time, it appeared that the messages
had left and arrived properly, but they never appeared anywhere else
that I was tracking (I'm old-fashioned enough to regularly hit multiple
bbs's for regular message packets, for backup and comparison purposes).

.............
 NB>> It would also appear that different situations give rise to different
 NB>> theories...  
 MK> Sounds entirely likely.
 NB>>  I've known some situations where the theory might as
 NB>> well have been fifth (or some other) time being the charm... 
 MK> Not possible since they are out of sync.  They need to take
 MK> synchronicity into account or the theory will fail in the testing or
 MK> experimental phase. 
 
Ah, but if it is a different theory, then it would be a different
synchronicity which would be taken into account...  :)

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

 MK> I would conclude that it wasn't really charm if the above is true.
 
OK, then.

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

Hmmm...  Most twin sets I knew growing up were the only kids in the
family, which probably doesn't help in the collection of data, either.

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

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

Are you suggesting that all/any* births after the multiple birth would
lack charm altogether?  Or just that charm would seek a new pattern?

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

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

Oh, ok...  

ttyl       neb

... Kernel Error -- A squirrel ate it


___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20

--- ViaMAIL!/WC v1.60d