Silkicide

William Ansley · 13 Jul 2002, 01:08 · from urth-v0207.mbox · original

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: William Ansley <wansley at warwick.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) Silkicide
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:08:43 -0400
Message-ID: <urth-v0207-1345 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0207/1345.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 4:28 PM -0700 7/12/02, Michael Andre-Driussi wrote:
>While we have pondered "did he or didn't he?" over years past, and will do
>so into the future, still I think we can all agree that it is ambiguous.

So far I'm with you, yes.

>Likewise I'm reasonably sure that we can all agree that we are in the
>bleachers of the arena, and the referees made the call: they said the words
>(talk of combining two persons), they backed it up with actions (taking out
>the non-corporeal parts of Silk aged 40-something; transferring in Horn's
>non-corporeal parts; the download from Mainframe of Silk-23 later on may
>have been their doing or not, if it happened, that is).
>
>The umpires made their call.  This is not ambiguous.

Now you've lost me. Who are the referees/umpires? And why Silk-*23*?=20
I don't mean to be irritating, but I could use some clarification.
--=20

William Ansley

--=20

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