| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1052.1 | | SMURF::BINDER | Deus tuus tibi sed deus meus mihi | Mon Jun 28 1993 15:23 | 1 |
| Missal or not, at least they didn't all miss.
|
| 1052.2 | tit-for-tat | KARRAK::ORME | MadVax | Tue Jun 29 1993 17:21 | 7 |
|
Does this mean that CUBA can throw rockets at Washington because of all the
attempts the CIA has had to kill Castro? And can CHILE have a shot too.?
(Is the "And" above excepted grammatically yet.)
ted
|
| 1052.3 | | JIT081::DIAMOND | Pardon me? Or must I be a criminal? | Tue Jun 29 1993 19:28 | 17 |
| Re .2
>Does this mean that CUBA can throw rockets at Washington because of all the
>attempts the CIA has had to kill Castro? And can CHILE have a shot too.?
From what little I've read about international law in newspapers,
my understanding is that they can. So can Panama and some others.
Obviously they don't because they're worried about losing, because
regardless of whether might ever makes right, might still makes might.
(Hardly joy-of-lex material though. But then neither was .1....)
(Is the "And" above excepted grammatically yet.)
I think so? But I'm not sure about the punctuation of your second
and third sentences?.
-- Norman Diamond
|
| 1052.4 | | MU::PORTER | life is a cabernet, old chum.. | Tue Jun 29 1993 20:38 | 7 |
| >(Hardly joy-of-lex material though. But then neither was .1....)
It was a pun, which I think qualifies it for this file.
I presume it was a deliberate pun.
|
| 1052.5 | | JIT081::DIAMOND | Pardon me? Or must I be a criminal? | Tue Jun 29 1993 23:21 | 3 |
| Sorry, you're right. Sometimes it's hard to remember that the
lexical construction of a note takes priority over its semantic
message.
|
| 1052.6 | | SMURF::BINDER | Deus tuus tibi sed deus meus mihi | Wed Jun 30 1993 10:18 | 3 |
| Re .4, .5
Yes, it was deliberate. I did not, however, deliberate long over it.
|