Re: Be Kind to IED's. . . Gaffas?!

[nessus@mit.edu (Douglas Alan)]

In article <950301145750_36114288@aol.com> IEDSRI@aol.com writes:

>   About Gaffa: IED is embarrassed. He used to be a student of 
>   Chris Williams's dictum on this issue, believing
>   that the word had some specific but unshared meaning 
>   other than its ostensible one: "gaffer's tape". IED 
>   believed this primarily because -- well, he now 
>   (after how many years now, |>oug?) concedes, just because!

How many years now?  I think we're up to a google plus one, aren't we?
That sounds about right.

>   Given both the weakness and the unsavoriness of this argument,
>   coupled with an extremely convincing recent posting by |>oug /\lan
>   on the subject, IED must, at least conditionally, reverse his
>   position and seek re-admission to the literalist camp. Frankly, he
>   is a bit ashamed to have played hooky from so sensible, humble and
>   honorable a school of thought for so long.

It must be a cold day in hell, indeed!

Well, come on in, out of that snow storm.

|>oug