Doris

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 01 Aug 2002, 21:33 · from urth-v0208.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: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Subject: RE: (urth) Doris
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:33:32 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0208-1514 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0208/1514.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> Blattid having objected to my certitude about the Weer-Gold=20
> parentage of Doris:

Whoa. I didn't object, I questioned, and was very careful to
qualify my statement as "to-me-here-now":

> > Perhaps I've missed (or simply forgotten) something in the
> > past coinscriptions on PEACE, but ... how does this, which
> > seems to-me-here-now highly conjectural, reach the point of
> > almost certainty?

This isn't saying "you shouldn't be so certain" -- it's asking
"how did you become so certain?"

Which you've explained. It still seems like a lot of conjecture
to-me-here-now, but I'll keep it in mind nextime I reread PEACE,
because if it's true it might explain a great deal. What you've=20
done (for me) is to make this conjecture plausible, but I'll be
looking for something concrete, some kind of, well, smoking gun.

At any rate, it's certainly a well-woven web. Me 'at's off.

--Blattid

overture, hit the lights

--=20

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