Prometheus and Mega Lists, April 1999 (Part Twelve)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 09:02:59 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Reply to Chris Langan, 4/11/99 (Part Two)
(Continued from Part One)
At 01:11 AM 4/10/99 -0400, Chris wrote:
> [PART 2 OF A 2-PART REPLY]
> Gird thy loins, my fellow Megarians, as duty calls us to beat
> down the remainder of Kevin Langdon's brutal assault on the
> lexicon of logic, philosophy and higher mathematics.
> On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Kevin Langdon wrote:
>>>> I agree that scientific theories do not generally include models
>>>> of the theoreticians themselves.
>>> And that's what makes them objective. The mental processes of
>>> the theorist are deliberately excluded from scientific theories.
>>> When you denied that such theories were objective for that
>>> reason, you were wrong.
>> That certainly doesn't make them objective. When a pro wrestler is
>> trash talking about how he's gonna put his opponent in the hospital,
>> his model of the situation doesn't include the mental processes of
>> the wrestler himself, but it would not be in accordance with standard
>> usage to describe his statements as "objective."
> Phenomenal focus is a necessary but insufficient condition for
> objectivity (do you understand this distinction?)
Approximately, but I'm not sure I have a precise handle on what you
mean by "phenomenal focus" or what other element you believe is
necessary for "objectivity."
> Trash-talking pro wrestlers fail the objectivity test for another reason,
> namely emotional and dramatic contamination. The "theories"
> promulgated by these wrestlers are deliberately infused with dramatic
> and emotional elements. This is a separate issue, and it has no bearing
> on what most of us refer to as "scientific theories".
That sinks your boat. Your messages are full of histrionics, hyperbole,
accusations, caricatures, gratuitous attribution of motives to others, and
putting words into other people's mouths. (Perhaps Chris will tell us
about the fish he sees from his "submarine.")
>>> What you meant was that scientific theories lack *absolute
>>> certainty* due to the impossibility of perfect empirical confirmation
>>> in an inductive context relative to a given set of axioms, theorems
>>> and postulates. In other words, you don't properly understand the
>>> meaning of "objectivity".
>> What you meant is that I don't use the term the same way you do.
> What I meant was that you don't use it correctly (see above comment).
My definition of objectivity accords a lot more closely with standard
usage than Chris'. It's just seeing things as they are, the opposite of
subjectivity, which takes them in relation to an aspect of onesel,f as if
they had no independent existence.
>>>>> You're confusing non-objectivity with any subunary degree
>>>>> of confirmation. The concept of objectivity, which is
>>>>> defined by juxtaposition to subjectivity, is independent of
>>>>> degree of confirmation relative to a given axiomatization of
>>>>> a theory. [This is your first really bad mistake.]
>>>> Presumably, you are speaking of, e.g., certain mathematical
>>>> propositions which are analytically true. You seem to be
>>>> further asserting that there are such propositions regarding
>>>> the physical world, but you have not established this to my
>>>> satisfaction.
>>> This is the exact opposite of what was actually stated. Analytic
>>> truth, which boils down to syntactic consistency, is not subject to
>>> empirical confirmation. Empirical truth, on the other hand, is
>>> always subject to confirmation. When one observes that empirical
>>> confirmation is always subunary with respect to open sets, one is
>>> saying the exact opposite of what you're now implying. Don't try
>>> to pull any cheap reversals on me here, Kev. You got nailed.
>> What "reversals"? I'm just trying to figure out what *you* had in
>> mind, which is not aways easy, since you insist on nonstandard
>> terminology.
> Let's cut to the chase. Who else besides Kevin thinks that I'm using
> "nonstandard terminology" in this discussion, given its subject
> matter?
And this will be test point #3.
<snip>
>>>>>> A model is a model. The real world is the real world. The
>>>>>> map is not the territory.
>>> Are you spacing out on me here? I'm trying to explain what a
>>> "model" is in the context of advanced logic and formalized
>>> theories. By definition, according to every scientist on this
>>> planet, a model is based on an isomorphism, and in fact an
>>> intersection, between theory and universe. That constitutes
>>> exactly what you say is missing: an identity relation between
>>> "map" (which in your lexicon corresponds to theory) and
>>> "territory" (the real world).
>> According to *you*, not to "every scientist on the planet." A
>> scientist *tries* to make his models correspond to the real
>> world, but most scientists would not agree with what you
>> wrote about an "identity relation."
> Every scientist on the planet, especially if he knows anything
> about logic, defines objectivity, model and isomorphism just like
> I do. The other ones, and I say this with all due respect, don't
> have meaningful opinions on the matter.
Chris always assumes that those who disagree with him don't have
meaningful opinions.
Here's test point #4 (do you follow Chris' definitions?) and #5
(do you agree with them?).
> But after all, they're not logicians; they're scientists. So they only
> have to *do* science, not explain what it is.
I agree with Chris that many scientists have never thoroughly
examined the roots of their discipline.
>> A given theory can be an advance over existing theory, in the
>> sense that it corresponds more closely to real phenomena, or
>> it can be a step in the wrong direction; it can turn out to be
>> wrong. How is the universe present in a wrong model?
> First, you use "theory" and "model" as synonyms. That's what
> you might call a "nonstandard" equation.
I've seen a lot of world-class scientists use "theory" and "model"
interchangeably.
> But to answer your question, we're talking about functional
> scientific theories here. And while a specific theory only
> corresponds to reality up to some limited degree of confirmation,
> its generalized cognitive substrate - e.g. logic and mathematics -
> corresponds perfectly to reality in a selective way. That is, they
> define the architecture and programming of the parallel distributed
> processor providing causality with an objective mechanism.
Test point #6. Who understands the paragraph above?
<snip>
>>> Of course, you might say something like this: "Isomorphism,
>>> shmorphism! Nothing whatsoever is reposed in reality; we just
>>> assume it has causal structure of its own and try to approximate
>>> that structure using our always-makeshift theories." But then I
>>> need merely point out that the objective causal structure in
>>> question has a certain minimal description, and this is just the
>>> structural intersect of all of these temporary theories: namely,
>>> information transduction, which we have already equated to
>>> generalized cognition. More specifically, it is distributed parallel
>>> computation, which is just what one gets by distributing any
>>> dynamic theory over any homogeneous local medium. Without
>>> this, objective causality would lack the means to function, and
>>> reality would be an unpredictable Langdonoid chaos for ever after.
>> I am not denying that there are *laws* governing physical and
>> psychic phenomena. But these laws must be discovered and verified
>> and this is an *empirical* matter.
> Did you, or did you not, just affirm the existence of physical and
> psychic laws? Because if you did, then you must have been making
> a rational statement, because you don't have the empirical data to
> identify the laws in question. This means that you are projecting your
> rational need for laws onto "objective reality". You're doing it, Kevin.
> You're doing it right now, and out of the other side of your mouth,
> you're denying that it can be done!
This is bizarre. I've observed that certain physical and psychic laws
have been demonstrated and established very firmly by many
experiments, including my own. There is no "projection" in this.
>>> Or you might pull your usual and say, "none of this is
>>> comprehensible to any rational person!" In that case, all I can say
>>> is that if this is really utterly incomprehensible to you, Kevin, then
>>> you really are too damned dumb to be in this group.
>> Parts of it are comprehensible, and then there are those little
"leaps."
>> That's why nobody can follow it.
> There are no leaps. And everyone but you can follow it.
Test point #7.
>>> In addition, it has been shown that although he proudly calls
>>> himself a "generalist" and a "philosopher", he doesn't
>>> understand the meanings of elementary philosophical terms
>>> like "objectivity", "model", and
"isomorphism"... concepts
>>> accessible to any high school student with a room-temperature
>>> IQ.]
>> I leave it to others to judge whose position makes more sense.
> Once again, is there anyone here who is willing to stand up and
> claim Kevin's position as his or her own?
Yes. But I don't expect others to agree with me on every detail.
>>> You're obviously the one who dredges up your bullshit
>>> accusations, not me. But I wouldn't be too quick to assume
>>> that solving difficult problems debated by the Society would
>>> "bore" the people on this list, especially as an alternative to
>>> being lobotomized by another round of your interminable
>>> faux-psychometric beancounting.
>> Some on this list have already said that they find it boring.
> It's boring because by repeatedly denying facts, you force their
> endless repetition. But I've just about had it with you anyway.
> You're too damned dense for me.
I keep denything that the sky is orange and Chris is God.
>> I'd appreciate it if others would put forward their own views
>> on Chris' claims.
> I'd appreciate the same. I have only a limited amount of time
> to waste on anyone who doesn't understand what models and
> isomorphisms are. One Kevin Langdon in this group is already
> one too many.
> Chris Langan
Once again, Langan is offensive.
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 17:09:57 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
> Subject: Re: [MegaList] 8^) Humor break 8^)
> Choose one:
> A) Yes, I am interested only in Great Generalist Kevin Langdon's
> viewpoint and am therefore a Langdonoid (and damn proud of it!).
> B) No, I am interested in both sides of the story, and am capable of
> distinguishing valid argumentation from its opposite. How do I get
> that other journal you mentioned?
C) I am interested in the CTMU, the mightiest work of the human
intellect. Send me that other journal and screw those Langdonoids.
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 06:15:56 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
> Subject: Re: [MegaList] Is Langan a Heaviside: Part II
> Below is Bob Dick's latest attempt to get my goat. I started to
> compose a detailed reply mentioning recent correspondence with
> Noam Chomsky, Tom Wolfe, and so on...people far more
> successful, and perhaps more intelligent, than almost anyone in
> this group. But I caught myself and pressed "cancel". Why?
> Because nothing one says to a yapping lapdog like Bob Dick will
> ever make him shut up. All Kevin Langdon has to do is stick a
> biscuit under his snout, and Bob will raise the roof to earn his
> treat.
Here is more deeply offensive language.
> However, I would like to say something about intellectual
> progress. The greatest inroads are often made by people out of
> the mainstream. Why? Precisely because they have nothing to
> lose by being conspicuously less mediocre than their more
> successful colleagues, who ignore them and pat each other on
> the back for repeating each other's mistakes. What the world
> needs now is not another crop of academic parrots, but at least
> one real supergenius. For this, future generations of humanity
> - the ones who stand to benefit from the most advanced work
> done today - would, if the choice were theirs, gladly trade a
> million second-rate, oxygen-wasting Dicklike hacks and call it
> a bargain.
The "supergenius" always needs to derogate someone else in
order to make himself look good.
> The Mega Society does not exist for $500 intellectual whores
> like Bob Dick (not, mind you, that Bob shouldn't be proud
> that he finally sold an article; it's just that the paltry, stinking
> $500 he was paid is obviously what he considers the most
> important part of his achievement).
It seems to be a rahter important part for Chris, too. It makes
him envious, and that makes him cruel.
> Rather, the Mega Society exists to nurture real geniuses...the
> ones who can expect no appreciation from academia, because
> they can too easily make academia look bad.
...except Kevin Langdon, who will be crushed like a bug by the
psychometric establishment.
> That's the Mega Society I belong to. What "Mega Society"
> Bob Dick or any other Langdonoid belongs to, on the other
> hand, is not a fruitful concern for anyone but Kevin Langdon.
> I hope this helps clarify my position on Bob Dick. [This makes
> twice that I've come home from work as the sun rises on
> Sunday morning, only to find a "love note" from Bob in my
> mailbox. Find yourself a woman, Bob - nobody should have
> to spend Saturday night composing hate mail.]
Anyone who's been paying attention knows that Bob is married,
which makes this doubly cruel. Chris Langan stoops to a new low.
Kevin Langdon
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:45:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Reply to Chris Langan, 4/11/99 (Part Two)
> > [PART 2 OF A 2-PART REPLY]
>
> > Gird thy loins, my fellow Megarians, as duty calls us to beat
> > down the remainder of Kevin Langdon's brutal assault on the
> > lexicon of logic, philosophy and higher mathematics.
>
> > On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Kevin Langdon wrote:
>
> >>>> I agree that scientific theories do not generally include models
> >>>> of the theoreticians themselves.
>
> >>> And that's what makes them objective. The mental processes of
> >>> the theorist are deliberately excluded from scientific theories.
> >>> When you denied that such theories were objective for that
> >>> reason, you were wrong.
>
> >> That certainly doesn't make them objective. When a pro wrestler is
> >> trash talking about how he's gonna put his opponent in the hospital,
> >> his model of the situation doesn't include the mental processes of
> >> the wrestler himself, but it would not be in accordance with standard
> >> usage to describe his statements as "objective."
>
> > Phenomenal focus is a necessary but insufficient condition for
> > objectivity (do you understand this distinction?)
>
> Approximately, but I'm not sure I have a precise handle on what you
> mean by "phenomenal focus" or what other element you believe is
> necessary for "objectivity."
Phenomenal focus means empirical versus rational focus. Phenomena are "out
there". Rational processes are usually thought to be "in here"...unless
you'd just like to agree with my original point, which is that they're
both "out there" (and for that matter, "in here").
>
> > Trash-talking pro wrestlers fail the objectivity test for another reason,
> > namely emotional and dramatic contamination. The "theories"
> > promulgated by these wrestlers are deliberately infused with dramatic
> > and emotional elements. This is a separate issue, and it has no bearing
> > on what most of us refer to as "scientific theories".
>
> That sinks your boat. Your messages are full of histrionics, hyperbole,
> accusations, caricatures, gratuitous attribution of motives to others, and
> putting words into other people's mouths. (Perhaps Chris will tell us
> about the fish he sees from his "submarine.")
Anybody but you could easily have separated the personal elements in my
messages from the theoretical content. Try to stay in focus.
>
> >>> What you meant was that scientific theories lack *absolute
> >>> certainty* due to the impossibility of perfect empirical confirmation
> >>> in an inductive context relative to a given set of axioms, theorems
> >>> and postulates. In other words, you don't properly understand the
> >>> meaning of "objectivity".
>
> >> What you meant is that I don't use the term the same way you do.
>
> > What I meant was that you don't use it correctly (see above comment).
>
> My definition of objectivity accords a lot more closely with standard
> usage than Chris'. It's just seeing things as they are, the opposite of
> subjectivity, which takes them in relation to an aspect of oneself as if
> they had no independent existence.
Objectivity entails (a) the exclusion of emotions, feelings, and so on
from one's perspective; (b) a focus on pure perceptions (as opposed to
emotions, feelings, prejudice, etc.). For the record, Kevin, I'm no longer
interested in your opinions regarding "standard usage". We've already seen
where it got you in the context of isomorphisms. This is a philosophical
discussion, so we have to use sufficiently advanced terminology, not what
you can regurgitate out of Webster's.
>
> >>>>> You're confusing non-objectivity with any subunary degree
> >>>>> of confirmation. The concept of objectivity, which is
> >>>>> defined by juxtaposition to subjectivity, is independent of
> >>>>> degree of confirmation relative to a given axiomatization of
> >>>>> a theory. [This is your first really bad mistake.]
>
> >>>> Presumably, you are speaking of, e.g., certain mathematical
> >>>> propositions which are analytically true. You seem to be
> >>>> further asserting that there are such propositions regarding
> >>>> the physical world, but you have not established this to my
> >>>> satisfaction.
>
> >>> This is the exact opposite of what was actually stated. Analytic
> >>> truth, which boils down to syntactic consistency, is not subject to
> >>> empirical confirmation. Empirical truth, on the other hand, is
> >>> always subject to confirmation. When one observes that empirical
> >>> confirmation is always subunary with respect to open sets, one is
> >>> saying the exact opposite of what you're now implying. Don't try
> >>> to pull any cheap reversals on me here, Kev. You got nailed.
>
> >> What "reversals"? I'm just trying to figure out what *you* had in
> >> mind, which is not aways easy, since you insist on nonstandard
> >> terminology.
>
> > Let's cut to the chase. Who else besides Kevin thinks that I'm using
> > "nonstandard terminology" in this discussion, given its subject
> > matter?
>
> And this will be test point #3.
>
> <snip>
>
> >>>>>> A model is a model. The real world is the real world. The
> >>>>>> map is not the territory.
>
> >>> Are you spacing out on me here? I'm trying to explain what a
> >>> "model" is in the context of advanced logic and formalized
> >>> theories. By definition, according to every scientist on this
> >>> planet, a model is based on an isomorphism, and in fact an
> >>> intersection, between theory and universe. That constitutes
> >>> exactly what you say is missing: an identity relation between
> >>> "map" (which in your lexicon corresponds to theory) and
> >>> "territory" (the real world).
>
> >> According to *you*, not to "every scientist on the planet." A
> >> scientist *tries* to make his models correspond to the real
> >> world, but most scientists would not agree with what you
> >> wrote about an "identity relation."
>
> > Every scientist on the planet, especially if he knows anything
> > about logic, defines objectivity, model and isomorphism just like
> > I do. The other ones, and I say this with all due respect, don't
> > have meaningful opinions on the matter.
>
> Chris always assumes that those who disagree with him don't have
> meaningful opinions.
>
> Here's test point #4 (do you follow Chris' definitions?) and #5
> (do you agree with them?).
Let me get this straight. Are you attempting to turn technical semantics
into a popularity contest to be decided by "Langdonoids R Us"? The only
thing you can "test" by doing that is the cohesion of your cult, a topic
in which I personally have no interest.
> > But after all, they're not logicians; they're scientists. So they only
> > have to *do* science, not explain what it is.
>
> I agree with Chris that many scientists have never thoroughly
> examined the roots of their discipline.
>
> > First, you use "theory" and "model" as synonyms. That's what
> > you might call a "nonstandard" equation.
>
> I've seen a lot of world-class scientists use "theory" and
"model"
> interchangeably.
Well, then, you've seen a lot of them use it sloppily. So have I...but
again, what difference does that make? You've already admitted that "many
scientists have never thoroughly examined the roots of their discipline".
Some of the roots they neglect are logical.
>
> > But to answer your question, we're talking about functional
> > scientific theories here. And while a specific theory only
> > corresponds to reality up to some limited degree of confirmation,
> > its generalized cognitive substrate - e.g. logic and mathematics -
> > corresponds perfectly to reality in a selective way. That is, they
> > define the architecture and programming of the parallel distributed
> > processor providing causality with an objective mechanism.
>
> Test point #6. Who understands the paragraph above?
Most qualified members, as opposed to unqualified members, probably
understand that paragraph. But if anybody doesn't, so what? It was merely
added as an abbreviated jolt to your memory, to refresh it concerning what
I'd already expanded on in previous messages. Why are you so desperate to
divert everyone's attention from the meat of this discussion?
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> Of course, you might say something like this: "Isomorphism,
> >>> shmorphism! Nothing whatsoever is reposed in reality; we just
> >>> assume it has causal structure of its own and try to approximate
> >>> that structure using our always-makeshift theories." But then I
> >>> need merely point out that the objective causal structure in
> >>> question has a certain minimal description, and this is just the
> >>> structural intersect of all of these temporary theories: namely,
> >>> information transduction, which we have already equated to
> >>> generalized cognition. More specifically, it is distributed parallel
> >>> computation, which is just what one gets by distributing any
> >>> dynamic theory over any homogeneous local medium. Without
> >>> this, objective causality would lack the means to function, and
> >>> reality would be an unpredictable Langdonoid chaos for ever after.
>
> >> I am not denying that there are *laws* governing physical and
> >> psychic phenomena. But these laws must be discovered and verified
> >> and this is an *empirical* matter.
>
> > Did you, or did you not, just affirm the existence of physical and
> > psychic laws? Because if you did, then you must have been making
> > a rational statement, because you don't have the empirical data to
> > identify the laws in question. This means that you are projecting your
> > rational need for laws onto "objective reality". You're doing it,
Kevin.
> > You're doing it right now, and out of the other side of your mouth,
> > you're denying that it can be done!
>
> This is bizarre. I've observed that certain physical and psychic laws
> have been demonstrated and established very firmly by many
> experiments, including my own. There is no "projection" in this.
You're bizarre, all right. First you said "I am not denying that there
are *laws* governing physical and psychic phenomena." Presumably, you
meant that because the existence of laws is obviously a general rational
prerequisite for the existence of "phenomena". Then you said "But these
laws must be discovered and verified and this is an *empirical* matter."
Presumably, you meant that the general rational necessity of laws can only
be refined into specific laws through observation, a point on which we
quite agree.
I was speaking, of course, about your apparent concession that laws
are a rational condition for the existence of phenomena. I assumed you
were capable of understanding this but had not followed the immediate
implications. Perhaps I was mistaken. Would you now like to disown or
modify this concession?
> >> > Or you might pull your usual and say, "none of this is
> >> > comprehensible to any rational person!" In that case, all I can
say
> >> > is that if this is really utterly incomprehensible to you, Kevin, then
> >> > you really are too damned dumb to be in this group.
>
> >> Parts of it are comprehensible, and then there are those little
"leaps."
> >> That's why nobody can follow it.
>
> > There are no leaps. And everyone but you can follow it.
I take that back. Bob Dick, for another one, can't follow it. Presumably,
other Langdonoids also share your incapacity, probably by means of a
weird telepathic dummy effect.
> >>> In addition, it has been shown that although he proudly calls
> >>> himself a "generalist" and a "philosopher", he
doesn't
> >>> understand the meanings of elementary philosophical terms
> >>> like "objectivity", "model", and
"isomorphism"... concepts
> >>> accessible to any high school student with a room-temperature
> >>> IQ.]
I'm now repeating this statement.
> >> I leave it to others to judge whose position makes more sense.
>
> > Once again, is there anyone here who is willing to stand up and
> > claim Kevin's position as his or her own?
>
> Yes. But I don't expect others to agree with me on every detail.
I wouldn't expect them to agree with you on *any* detail. But then there's
"Langdonoids R Us."
> > Chris Langan
>
*****
> On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 06:15:56 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
>
> > Subject: Re: [MegaList] Is Langan a Heaviside: Part II
>
> > Below is Bob Dick's latest attempt to get my goat. I started to
> > compose a detailed reply mentioning recent correspondence with
> > Noam Chomsky, Tom Wolfe, and so on...people far more
> > successful, and perhaps more intelligent, than almost anyone in
> > this group. But I caught myself and pressed "cancel". Why?
> > Because nothing one says to a yapping lapdog like Bob Dick will
> > ever make him shut up. All Kevin Langdon has to do is stick a
> > biscuit under his snout, and Bob will raise the roof to earn his
> > treat.
>
> Here is more deeply offensive language.
Too bad. Curb your yappy friend, or it gets worse.
>
> > However, I would like to say something about intellectual
> > progress. The greatest inroads are often made by people out of
> > the mainstream. Why? Precisely because they have nothing to
> > lose by being conspicuously less mediocre than their more
> > successful colleagues, who ignore them and pat each other on
> > the back for repeating each other's mistakes. What the world
> > needs now is not another crop of academic parrots, but at least
> > one real supergenius. For this, future generations of humanity
> > - the ones who stand to benefit from the most advanced work
> > done today - would, if the choice were theirs, gladly trade a
> > million second-rate, oxygen-wasting Dicklike hacks and call it
> > a bargain.
>
> The "supergenius" always needs to derogate someone else in
> order to make himself look good.
Like you derogate me in the above statement, you mean? And by the way, is
it or is it not true that the mega threshold could reasonably be labeled
with the term "supergenius"? You're insulting the very premise of this
group!
> > The Mega Society does not exist for $500 intellectual whores
> > like Bob Dick (not, mind you, that Bob shouldn't be proud
> > that he finally sold an article; it's just that the paltry, stinking
> > $500 he was paid is obviously what he considers the most
> > important part of his achievement).
>
> It seems to be a rahter important part for Chris, too. It makes
> him envious, and that makes him cruel.
What's your support for the notion that money is the driving force behind
my theorization?
> > Rather, the Mega Society exists to nurture real geniuses...the
> > ones who can expect no appreciation from academia, because
> > they can too easily make academia look bad.
>
> ...except Kevin Langdon, who will be crushed like a bug by the
> psychometric establishment.
Quite so. And nothing he says can change that. In fact, his style of
self-expression all but *guarantees* that.
> > That's the Mega Society I belong to. What "Mega Society"
> > Bob Dick or any other Langdonoid belongs to, on the other
> > hand, is not a fruitful concern for anyone but Kevin Langdon.
>
> > I hope this helps clarify my position on Bob Dick. [This makes
> > twice that I've come home from work as the sun rises on
> > Sunday morning, only to find a "love note" from Bob in my
> > mailbox. Find yourself a woman, Bob - nobody should have
> > to spend Saturday night composing hate mail.]
>
> Anyone who's been paying attention knows that Bob is married,
> which makes this doubly cruel. Chris Langan stoops to a new low.
You're right; I seldom pay any attention to Bob Dick. Please excuse the
oversight.
Chris Langan