Violet=Plutonium?

Lee Berman · 14 Nov 2011, 21:09 · from 2011-November.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:09:14 -0500
Subject: (urth) Violet=Plutonium?
Message-ID: <SNT123-W53EA7F76DE8CACB2C463FBCFC00 at phx.gbl>

>Sergei Soloviev:  I really think that many of the theories we discuss here are
>like skyscrapers built on sand

>David Stockhoff: Well, not entirely. First, we are not building skyscrapers but 
>rather imagining what they might look like and how they might be built. I don't 
>think Violet is a chem either, but if not, why not?

As David demonstrates, he is not married to his theory to the point of blind rage
if he is gainsaid. He tossed out an idea which eventually led to a point of 
interesting discussion. I think your quotes combined with David's insight suggest
that the appellation "Plutonium" is meant as the equivalent to "Sweetheart" for a
being powered by a nuclear reactor (especially considering a synonym for "heart"
is "core"). Surely a connection is worth noting and identifying, yes?

Do we really want to discourage such disucussion? How interesting would this board
be if all that was discussed was as certain and obvious as rock solid granite 
foundation.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net