Hi, this is a re-send of a message I tried to send on October 21st. 
First the bbs wasn't responding... turned out that his brand-new hard
drive had died suddenly, so he had to put up the old one again and so he
went to a different bbs software, on which my reply packet wouldn't
work.  So, he tried twice to toss the packet (which I sent him as an
email attachment) in the other software, and while it appeared to go
out just fine, none of the messages ever made it anywhere, either time.

So, I'm manually resending it... saved and now inserted into this
message... hope it works this time...  :)   Just watch, now the original
will show up out of whatever black hole it's been hiding in!  

Here's the missing reply:    Date: 21 Oct 07  20:31:00
-=> Quoting Maurice Kinal to Nancy Backus on 10-18-07  05:11 <=-

 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 in a secondary fashion.
 MK> Are you concluding that charm can be used for good and/or evil?

It would appear so... :)

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

It would also appear that different situations give rise to different
theories...     I've known some situations where the theory might as
well have been fifth (or some other) time being the charm...   And I
have certainly known some people for whom the charm is put on, just for
the occasion...  Of course, that might better be written "charm", and
one might argue that if even one perspicacious person can tell that it
isn't real, that it isn't truly charming...?

 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... :)

 MK> What other possiblities do you think there might be?
 
Depends on whether a multiple-birth set should be considered as one
person in the line-up for receiving charm, or they are each considered
in the order of their birth...  IE  single, twins, single, triplets
could be considered to be 4 birth slots, or it could be single #1, twin1
#2, twin2 #3, single #4, triplet1 #5, triplet2 #6, and triplet3 #7.  Or
if, within each multiple set, the child is considered in set birth order
for charm as well as or instead of family birth order.  And probably
other permutations thereof as well...  

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

 MK> That works for me.

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

ttyl         neb

... Time sure flies...no matter what you're doing.

--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.20