see1@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Ellen Seebacher) (11/29/85)
[]
Net.jokes has the "Obligatory Joke" rule: every posting has
to have [okay, ought to have] a joke in it. The "imminent-
collapse-of-the-net" debate has prompted a new protocol,
that net.philosophy and net.religion have a new rule: the
"Obligatory Thought."
Please send flames directly. Chicago gets cold.
--
Ellen Keyne Seebacher Univ. of Chicago Comp. Center
Dilige et quod vis fac. ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!see1
see1@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Ellen Seebacher) (11/29/85)
[] Net.jokes has the "Obligatory Joke" rule: every posting has to have [okay, ought to have] a joke in it. The "imminent- collapse-of-the-net" debate has prompted a new protocol, that net.philosophy and net.religion have a new rule: the "Obligatory Thought." Please send flames directly. Chicago gets cold. -- Ellen Keyne Seebacher Univ. of Chicago Comp. Center Dilige et quod vis fac. ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!see1
mathnews@watdcsu.UUCP (mathNEWS) (11/29/85)
In article <1399@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> see1@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Ellen Seebacher) writes: >Net.jokes has the "Obligatory Joke" rule: every posting has >to have [okay, ought to have] a joke in it. The "imminent- >collapse-of-the-net" debate has prompted a new protocol, >that net.philosophy and net.religion have a new rule: the >"Obligatory Thought." Hmm... I don't think there'll be too many postings to those two groups now :-) And now the obligatory joke (and thought--two for the price of one!): If "fortification" means a very large fort, why doesn't "ratification" mean a very large rat? dwarf -- "Degeneracy is not necessarily a bad thing." mathNEWS--the math student newspaper at the University of Waterloo {allegra|clyde|linus|ihnp4|decvax}!watmath!watdcsu!mathnews UUCP mathnews%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet CSNET mathnews@watdcsu NETNORTH
dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) (12/03/85)
> If "fortification" means a very large fort, why doesn't "ratification" > mean a very large rat? And "ramification" should mean a very large ram, and "personification" should mean a very large person, and "classification" should mean a very large class, and "certification" should mean a very large Cert's breath mint, and "solidification" should mean a very large solid, and "codification" should mean a very large cod, ...
ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn) (12/04/85)
In article <527@philabs.UUCP> dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) writes: >> If "fortification" means a very large fort, why doesn't "ratification" >> mean a very large rat? > >And etc. etc. etc. But it DOESN'T mean a very large fort, so PLEASE, let that be the end of it, or at least transfer the "discussion" to net.rubbish where it belongs. Ray Dunn. ...philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (12/07/85)
> > If "fortification" means a very large fort, why doesn't "ratification" > > mean a very large rat? > And "ramification" should mean a very large ram, > and "personification" should mean a very large person, > and "classification" should mean a very large class, > and "certification" should mean a very large Cert's breath mint, > and "solidification" should mean a very large solid, > and "codification" should mean a very large cod, calcification should apply to calculations involving large numbers decertification should apply to a severe case of bad breath dignification should apply to large excavations edification should apply to editing large files electrification should apply to voltages found in lightning falsification should apply to brassieres for large women intensification should apply to increases by powers of ten justification should apply solely to the US Supreme Court magnification should apply only to superconducting magnets modification should apply to the new number of mod.* newsgroups mortification should apply to disasters having a large loss of life nullification should apply to the total storage capacity of /dev/null ossifification should apply only to dinosaur bones pacification should apply to oceans approaching the Pacific in size petrification should apply to kennels and catteries pontification should apply to Popes weighing > 100 kg rectification should apply to severe cases of diarrhea saponification should apply to Extra Large Economy Size soap packages signification should apply to excessive graphics in .signatures syllabification should apply to excessive sylly shit like this posting testification should apply to people with big balls unification should apply to the increasing number of UNIX systems === Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York === === UUCP {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry === === VOICE 716/741-9185 {rice,shell}!baylor!/ === === FAX 716/741-9635 {AT&T 3510D} ihnp4!/ === === === === "Have you hugged your cat today?" ===
brianc@tekla.UUCP (Brian Conley) (12/10/85)
> > > If "fortification" means a very large fort, why doesn't "ratification" > > > mean a very large rat? > > And "ramification" should mean a very large ram, *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH Bagels and LOX * Considering this trend and the other continueing list of "comments which got people kicked of the RADIO/TV" I offer the following question: (my friend and I used to ask ourselves this one) If "overkill" implies 'too much kill', what does "overcome" imply? (and you wonder why English is a confusing language?)