Jump to Navigation

We've moved! The new address is http://www.henriettes-herb.com - update your links and bookmarks!

1996 08

From: Tom Harrington (tph:longhorn.uucp)
Subject: Re: Why do women wear underwear?
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Date: 1996/08/26

Tom Phoenix (rootbeer:teleport.com) wrote:
: On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Dylan Walsh wrote:
: > Why doesn't someone set up a similar system to rival the Oracle? As this would be moderated by different people, you might fix a lot of the problems with the Oracle - and piss of Kinzler.
: Maybe we should do this if we can fix some problems. Which ones would be fixed by doing this? Here are the ones I can see.

Can't you see that the current system needs replacing?

The ORACLE is an important resource and MUST be made fully available to the people! We can't have this censorious bastard Kinzler telling us what's funny and what's not! Who elected him grand master of the Oracle, anyway? I never voted for him, so he doesn't represent ME! The Oracle should be an open system, not a dictatorship.


From: David Sewell (dsew:packrat.aml.arizona.edu)
Subject: Re: Why do women wear underwear?
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Date: 1996/08/20

Tom Phoenix <rootbeer:teleport.com> wrote:
> * The current Priests reject too many answers.

I've got a great idea. Steve should establish a mailing list for anyone who wants a full feed of Oracularities--i.e., a carbon copy of every single Oracularity that goes out to the Priesthood.

Getting on the list would be free.

To get off the list, you'd have to pay $500.

Steve could probably finance Indiana U's next particle accelerator with the proceeds...

DS, Oracular Priest


From: David Sewell (dsew:packrat.aml.arizona.edu)
Ian Collier <imc:ecs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>To get off the list, [snip]
> I'd have to write a short procmail script. :-)

Oh ho. The last fellow who tried that found out that /dev/null *can* fill up, and that the consequence is very, very messy.


From: David Sewell (dsew:packrat.aml.arizona.edu)
Subject: Re: Internet Oracularities Digest #849
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Date: 1996/08/07

John Fouhy <jfouhy:atlantis.actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>It is an interesting, but little known fact, that no where in the Bible is the number of wise men mentioned, only that there were >=2 (/men/, not man) and that they carried between them 3 gifts.

On the contrary. Since Biblical Hebrew was written without vowels, there is no way to distinguish singular "man" from plural "men".

David S.

(aspiring to the current level of Oracular intelligence)

<What really makes this one delicious is that several posters took it at face value. One explained the plural forms of hebrew, another said that the bible was written in Greek and Aramaic, not English, a few asked if DS was serious...>


From: Richard Wilson (Richard:molerat.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Internet Oracularities Digest #849
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Date: 1996/08/08

dsew:packrat.aml.arizona.edu "David Sewell" writes:
> there is no way to distinguish singular "man" from plural "men".

Typically sterile academic debate resulting from not consulting all available sources (cf Homer's "wine-red sea", Ernie Wise's hairpiece, etc). Life of Brian clearly depicts three wise men, so where's the problem?



Main menu 2