# PEACE: Weer through thick and thin *The Urth list — 1 messages, 1 voices, 30 Oct 2002* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### William Ansley *30 Oct 2002, 04:18* > At 4:19 PM -0700 10/24/02, Michael Andre-Driussi wrote: > === > TEXTUAL VARIATION ALERT > In the hc it is "twenty . . . pounds underweight" (3). > In the Berkley pb it is "twenty . . . pounds overweight" (3). > === The Orb paperback edition also reads "underweight." If this version is correct, then Weer is always skinny, which would seem to throw at least a small monkey wrench into your time-splice-at-the-doctors-office theory. That is, if we have a "thin, prosperous" Weer rather than a "fat, prosperous" Weer, then there is less evidence that we have jumped from the Weer of one time to the Weer of another. At the very least, we have lost a convenient marker. ``` William Ansley -- ``` ---