[Dixonary] Rnd 2337 XENIA Reminder

[John Barrs]

The Word for Round 2337 is

XENIA

At 2:41 pm in the UK; with about 9 hours to go I have received a mere 7
definitions from

Dan Widdis, Dave Cunningham, Guerri Stevens, Judy Madnick, Millie Morgan,
Tim Bourne, Tim Lodge

If your name is not on that list and you have sent to me, then please
resend - else send anyway - by private EMAIL to johnnybarrs (AT) gmail (DOT) com

I may extend the deadline if defs are still thin on the ground come midnight


JohnnyB
(using DIXOBASE)

[Tony Abell]

On 2012-09-14 at 09:44 John Barrs wrote:

> At 2:41 pm in the UK; with about 9 hours to go I have received a mere 7
> definitions from

Ah, I thought I had missed the deadline. Since the calendar day begins at
midnight (that is, the moment of midnight belongs to the new day), the
deadline of "Midnight British Time 14 Sep 2012" had already passed 14 hours
and 41 minutes before you posted this reminder.

Apparently you meant midnight 15 Sep 2012 BST (2012-09-14 23:00:00 UTC).

[Dodi Schultz]

On 9/14/2012 10:06 AM, Tony Abell wrote:
> On 2012-09-14 at 09:44 John Barrs wrote:
>
>> At 2:41 pm in the UK; with about 9 hours to go I have received a mere 7
>> definitions from
> Ah, I thought I had missed the deadline. Since the calendar day begins at
> midnight (that is, the moment of midnight belongs to the new day), the
> deadline of "Midnight British Time 14 Sep 2012" had already passed 14 hours
> and 41 minutes before you posted this reminder.
>
> Apparently you meant midnight 15 Sep 2012 BST (2012-09-14 23:00:00 UTC).

I don't think that's necessarily the consistent American interpretation,
Tony. To me, midnight 14 Sept is tonight, and when it's that time for
Johnny, it's 7 p.m. today for me (and you).

But since there's always been some confusion around that time, dealers who
want to make it a deadline will often say "11:59" or "12:01".

>
>

[John Barrs]

Tony

Apologies for the confusion - I thought - and have checked out with a
couple of local friends who agree with my understanding - that midnight is
today - 1 second past midnight is tomorrow - it may be an American/British
- divided by a common language

Besides, my deadline is short even by my understanding but I think there
would have been howls of outrage if I had really set a deadline of only 6
hours

JohnnyB

On 14 September 2012 15:06, Tony Abell <hello (AT) isanybodyhome (DOT) com> wrote:

>
> On 2012-09-14 at 09:44 John Barrs wrote:
>
> > At 2:41 pm in the UK; with about 9 hours to go I have received a mere 7
> > definitions from
>
> Ah, I thought I had missed the deadline. Since the calendar day begins at
> midnight (that is, the moment of midnight belongs to the new day), the
> deadline of "Midnight British Time 14 Sep 2012" had already passed 14 hours
> and 41 minutes before you posted this reminder.
>
> Apparently you meant midnight 15 Sep 2012 BST (2012-09-14 23:00:00 UTC).
>
>

[France International/Mike Shefler]

Well, the 24 hour clock (e.g. military time) runs from 00:00 to 23:59,
so technically midnight is the start of the day, not the end. Also most
digital clocks turn over from 11:59 PM to 12:00 AM at midnight, further
reinforcing that interpretation.

On 9/14/2012 11:27 AM, John Barrs wrote:
> Tony
>
> Apologies for the confusion - I thought - and have checked out with a
> couple of local friends who agree with my understanding - that
> midnight is today - 1 second past midnight is tomorrow - it may be an
> American/British - divided by a common language
>
> Besides, my deadline is short even by my understanding but I think
> there would have been howls of outrage if I had really set a deadline
> of only 6 hours
>
> JohnnyB
>
> On 14 September 2012 15:06, Tony Abell <hello (AT) isanybodyhome (DOT) com
> <mailto:hello (AT) isanybodyhome (DOT) com>> wrote:
>
>
> On 2012-09-14 at 09:44 John Barrs wrote:
>
> > At 2:41 pm in the UK; with about 9 hours to go I have received
> a mere 7
> > definitions from
>
> Ah, I thought I had missed the deadline. Since the calendar day
> begins at
> midnight (that is, the moment of midnight belongs to the new day), the
> deadline of "Midnight British Time 14 Sep 2012" had already passed
> 14 hours
> and 41 minutes before you posted this reminder.
>
> Apparently you meant midnight 15 Sep 2012 BST (2012-09-14 23:00:00
> UTC).
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5268 - Release Date: 09/14/12
>

[Efrem Mallach]

Those arguments are logical. Unfortunately, a similar number of equally good arguments can be made for the other interpretation, such as the fact that we use the expression "the night of the 14th," in sentences such as "I need a hotel room for the night of the 14th," to mean the night that begins on the 14th and ends on the 15th. If that's "the night of the 14th," isn't midnight on the 14th part of it? Calling that moment midnight on the 15th, when it falls on the night of the 14th, is simply sowing confusion.

I suspect that this debate will prove to be just as inconclusive as another I heard recently, on whether Noah had to carry all 4,000+ species of frogs in the ark or whether one pair of representative frogs would have sufficed.

In the meantime, we can avoid the problem by the previously-suggested expedient of using the minute before or the minute after, by avoiding times that are midnight in any of the time zones we feel like mentioning, or by explicitly stating what we mean when we give a time of midnight. Should I ever again be (un)lucky enough to deal a round, I plan to take the "it isn't midnight anywhere that matters" approach.

Efrem

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Sep 14, 2012, at 11:47 AM, France International/Mike Shefler wrote:

> Well, the 24 hour clock (e.g. military time) runs from 00:00 to 23:59, so technically midnight is the start of the day, not the end. Also most digital clocks turn over from 11:59 PM to 12:00 AM at midnight, further reinforcing that interpretation.
>
> On 9/14/2012 11:27 AM, John Barrs wrote:
>> Tony
>>
>> Apologies for the confusion - I thought - and have checked out with a couple of local friends who agree with my understanding - that midnight is today - 1 second past midnight is tomorrow - it may be an American/British - divided by a common language
>>
>> Besides, my deadline is short even by my understanding but I think there would have been howls of outrage if I had really set a deadline of only 6 hours
>>
>> JohnnyB
>>
>> On 14 September 2012 15:06, Tony Abell <hello (AT) isanybodyhome (DOT) com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2012-09-14 at 09:44 John Barrs wrote:
>>
>> > At 2:41 pm in the UK; with about 9 hours to go I have received a mere 7
>> > definitions from
>>
>> Ah, I thought I had missed the deadline. Since the calendar day begins at
>> midnight (that is, the moment of midnight belongs to the new day), the
>> deadline of "Midnight British Time 14 Sep 2012" had already passed 14 hours
>> and 41 minutes before you posted this reminder.
>>
>> Apparently you meant midnight 15 Sep 2012 BST (2012-09-14 23:00:00 UTC).
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5268 - Release Date: 09/14/12
>>
>

[John Barrs]

Lots of frogspawn would be OK - maybe just a pair of each tadpoles swimming
around in the bilges - maybe the recent parthenogenesis discoveries would
mean only one of each tadpole - But even more likely; maybe no frogs at all
as the tadpoles could live in the flood anyway -
mostly I am amazed that we can't be more inventive. The best one that I
ahve come across is that Noah did have lots of dinosaurs - as eggs - but
all the eggs were eaten by the carnivorous mammals that were hungry when
they were let out.
From memory I quote G K Chesterton "O let us never never doubt/what no-one
can be sure about"

JohnnyB

On 14 September 2012 17:01, Efrem Mallach <emallach (AT) umassd (DOT) edu> wrote:

> Those arguments are logical. Unfortunately, a similar number of equally
> good arguments can be made for the other interpretation, such as the fact
> that we use the expression "the night of the 14th," in sentences such as "I
> need a hotel room for the night of the 14th," to mean the night that begins
> on the 14th and ends on the 15th. If that's "the night of the 14th," isn't
> midnight on the 14th part of it? Calling that moment midnight on the 15th,
> when it falls on the night of the 14th, is simply sowing confusion.
>
> I suspect that this debate will prove to be just as inconclusive as
> another I heard recently, on whether Noah had to carry all 4,000+ species
> of frogs in the ark or whether one pair of representative frogs would have
> sufficed.
>
> In the meantime, we can avoid the problem by the previously-suggested
> expedient of using the minute before or the minute after, by avoiding times
> that are midnight in any of the time zones we feel like mentioning, or by
> explicitly stating what we mean when we give a time of midnight. Should I
> ever again be (un)lucky enough to deal a round, I plan to take the "it
> isn't midnight anywhere that matters" approach.
>
> Efrem
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> On Sep 14, 2012, at 11:47 AM, France International/Mike Shefler wrote:
>
> Well, the 24 hour clock (e.g. military time) runs from 00:00 to 23:59, so
> technically midnight is the start of the day, not the end. Also most
> digital clocks turn over from 11:59 PM to 12:00 AM at midnight, further
> reinforcing that interpretation.
>
> On 9/14/2012 11:27 AM, John Barrs wrote:
>
> Tony
>
> Apologies for the confusion - I thought - and have checked out with a
> couple of local friends who agree with my understanding - that midnight is
> today - 1 second past midnight is tomorrow - it may be an American/British
> - divided by a common language
>
> Besides, my deadline is short even by my understanding but I think there
> would have been howls of outrage if I had really set a deadline of only 6
> hours
>
> JohnnyB
>
> On 14 September 2012 15:06, Tony Abell <hello (AT) isanybodyhome (DOT) com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2012-09-14 at 09:44 John Barrs wrote:
>>
>> > At 2:41 pm in the UK; with about 9 hours to go I have received a mere 7
>> > definitions from
>>
>> Ah, I thought I had missed the deadline. Since the calendar day begins at
>> midnight (that is, the moment of midnight belongs to the new day), the
>> deadline of "Midnight British Time 14 Sep 2012" had already passed 14
>> hours
>> and 41 minutes before you posted this reminder.
>>
>> Apparently you meant midnight 15 Sep 2012 BST (2012-09-14 23:00:00 UTC).
>>
>>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5268 - Release Date: 09/14/12
>
>
>
>

[Efrem Mallach]

Actually, that argument was raised, but shot down on the grounds that frogs may like water but could not survive for that length of time in salt water 29,000 feet deep (to cover Everest).

(Tadpoles would turn into frogs before the flood receded. We need to be concerned with the survival of fully formed frogs.)

And now back to our regular programming ...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Sep 14, 2012, at 12:31 PM, John Barrs wrote:

> ...maybe no frogs at all as the tadpoles could live in the flood anyway -

[other stuff snipped]

[Dodi Schultz]

On 9/14/2012 12:38 PM, Efrem Mallach wrote:
> Actually, that argument was raised, but shot down on the grounds that frogs may like water but could not survive for that length of time in salt water 29,000 feet deep (to cover Everest).
>
> (Tadpoles would turn into frogs before the flood receded. We need to be concerned with the survival of fully formed frogs.)
>
> And now back to our regular programming ...
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> On Sep 14, 2012, at 12:31 PM, John Barrs wrote:
>
>> ...maybe no frogs at all as the tadpoles could live in the flood anyway -


This stuff is SO much better than the Nat'l Ass'n of Science Writers listservs.

[John Barrs]

Well I once read a paper that maintained that frogs reproduce so fast that
the whole of the American double continent could be populated in 2
generations after crossing the Berring Straits land bridge (after the
receding Flood) and they then used that fact to generate a time scale....
The authors were most put out when I asked if they knew any frogs that
could walk (hop) 10,000 miles in one generation

Meanwhile, why does it have to have been be poisonously salty? - the
current saltiness is increasing as rivers bring stuff down to the sea but
even given our current salt, if that was distributed in enough water to
cover Everest would be very dilute indeed

And --re the timing of frog development - given that we are dealing with
miracle here anyway why not a couple more things to include. That is: I
personally do not see that science can be invoked here to explain
everything. Actually I do not think science can be invoked anywhere to
explain everything. Such a belief is just that, an article of faith.

Incidentally, this is "Normal Service" for me - putting a spanner in the
regular programming of all sorts of people and ideas ("iconoclast" is my
other middle name - OED def 2 - my first middle name is "None" because
American IRS did not accept the fact that I did not have a middle name - in
1976 their forms demanded an entry - I have letters addressed to John None
Barrs)

JohnnyB

On 14 September 2012 17:38, Efrem Mallach <emallach (AT) umassd (DOT) edu> wrote:

> Actually, that argument was raised, but shot down on the grounds that
> frogs may like water but could not survive for that length of time in salt
> water 29,000 feet deep (to cover Everest).
>
> (Tadpoles would turn into frogs before the flood receded. We need to be
> concerned with the survival of fully formed frogs.)
>
> And now back to our regular programming ...
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> On Sep 14, 2012, at 12:31 PM, John Barrs wrote:
>
> > ...maybe no frogs at all as the tadpoles could live in the flood anyway -
>
> [other stuff snipped]
>
>

[Efrem Mallach]

Given that we are dealing with miracles here anyway, why was the ark necessary? Why couldn't God just re-create all the animals after the Flood? It didn't take Him that long the first time, after all, and now He's further along the learning curve. Perhaps He could have corrected at least one earlier mistake, and skipped the mosquito ...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Sep 14, 2012, at 1:32 PM, John Barrs wrote:


....
> And --re the timing of frog development - given that we are dealing with miracle here anyway why not a couple more things to include. That is: I personally do not see that science can be invoked here to explain everything. Actually I do not think science can be invoked anywhere to explain everything. Such a belief is just that, an article of faith.
....

[France International/Mike Shefler]

My father lived a long and productive life without a middle name. And he
had no trouble from the IRS or the US Army about it either.
I wonder how Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María
de los Remedios Crispiniano de la Santísima Trinidad (otherwise known as
Picasso) filled out his forms?

On 9/14/2012 1:32 PM, John Barrs wrote:
> my first middle name is "None" because American IRS did not accept the
> fact that I did not have a middle name - in 1976 their forms demanded
> an entry - I have letters addressed to John None Barrs)

[John Barrs]

Ah, but your father wasn't forced...
I was admitted to USA on a student visa on the specific written condition
that I did not get a social security number (so that I wouldn't use social
security I suppose). When I came to leave the USA then IRS would not allow
me to leave until they had checked that I didn't owe any taxes.
One cannot fill in their forms (or one could not do so back back then)
without having a social security number. I was hailed (hauled) before some
local official who was convinced that I was dodging some sort of column
somewhere and had to be "dealt with"!. Dealing with me involved him filling
in the forms because he obviously either didn't think I was capable or he
thought that I was untrustworthy. I opt for his thinking I was incapable
because he obviously trusted my verbal answers! (Reason for my leaving or
tying to leave the USA was that I had just finished a masters degree and
graduated msgns cum laude) Eventually he used a SS number of all zeros so
that he could fill in his forms but he would not accept the no middle name
- hence the "None"
Eventually, once I was back here in UK they sent me a fairly large cheque
for negative income-tax - I did not cash it because I felt unhappy with the
idea that y'all owed me money.
The SS number caused problems later... the people I hsd lived with when I
was studying were suing IRS for $29M and IRS tried it on by claiming I
hadn't paid SS so to avoid their weaselling they paid 3 years of SS for me
on the all zero's number. As I understand it, when he won his case he was
also paid back the SS monies falsely demanded on a non-existing SS number
because SS had no number to credit it to.

John None Barrs

On 14 September 2012 19:00, France International/Mike Shefler <
stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com> wrote:

> My father lived a long and productive life without a middle name. And he
> had no trouble from the IRS or the US Army about it either.
> I wonder how Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de
> los Remedios Crispiniano de la Santísima Trinidad (otherwise known as
> Picasso) filled out his forms?
>
>
> On 9/14/2012 1:32 PM, John Barrs wrote:
>
>> my first middle name is "None" because American IRS did not accept the
>> fact that I did not have a middle name - in 1976 their forms demanded an
>> entry - I have letters addressed to John None Barrs)
>>
>
>

[stamps]

Well, evidently you ran into some bureaucrat whose whole existence was
premised on filling out forms correctly, regardless of reality. I have run
into similar people in my life and find the best response is to nod politely
and say "Yes, sir", the afterwards go back to doing whatever you were doing
in the first place.

--
Salsgiver.com Webmail

Fiber Optic Internet and Voice are here!
Find out more at http://www.gotlit.com


---------- Original Message -----------
From: John Barrs <johnnybarrs (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
Sent: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:51:19 +0100
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Rnd 2337 XENIA Reminder

> Ah, but your father wasn't forced...
> I was admitted to USA on a student visa on the specific written condition
> that I did not get a social security number (so that I wouldn't use social
> security I suppose). When I came to leave the USA then IRS would not
> allow me to leave until they had checked that I didn't owe any
> taxes. One cannot fill in their forms (or one could not do so back
> back then) without having a social security number. I was hailed
> (hauled) before some local official who was convinced that I was
> dodging some sort of column somewhere and had to be "dealt with"!.
> Dealing with me involved him filling in the forms because he
> obviously either didn't think I was capable or he thought that I
> was untrustworthy. I opt for his thinking I was incapable because he
> obviously trusted my verbal answers! (Reason for my leaving or tying
> to leave the USA was that I had just finished a masters degree and
> graduated msgns cum laude) Eventually he used a SS number of all
> zeros so that he could fill in his forms but he would not accept the
> no middle name - hence the "None" Eventually, once I was back here
> in UK they sent me a fairly large cheque for negative income-tax -
> I did not cash it because I felt unhappy with the idea that y'all
> owed me money. The SS number caused problems later... the people I
> hsd lived with when I was studying were suing IRS for $29M and IRS
> tried it on by claiming I hadn't paid SS so to avoid their
> weaselling they paid 3 years of SS for me on the all zero's number.
> As I understand it, when he won his case he was also paid back the
> SS monies falsely demanded on a non-existing SS number because SS
> had no number to credit it to.
>
> John None Barrs
>
> On 14 September 2012 19:00, France International/Mike Shefler <
> stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com> wrote:
>
> > My father lived a long and productive life without a middle name. And he
> > had no trouble from the IRS or the US Army about it either.
> > I wonder how Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de
> > los Remedios Crispiniano de la Santísima Trinidad (otherwise known as
> > Picasso) filled out his forms?
> >
> >
> > On 9/14/2012 1:32 PM, John Barrs wrote:
> >
> >> my first middle name is "None" because American IRS did not accept the
> >> fact that I did not have a middle name - in 1976 their forms demanded an
> >> entry - I have letters addressed to John None Barrs)
> >>
> >
> >
------- End of Original Message -------

[John Barrs]

I think the best form-filler I came across was when we were home-schooliong
one of our children. We had an inspector from the education people come to
check us out and and fill in his forms. We were sitting in a room where 3
of the four walls were floor-to-ceiling bookshelves,all filled with books -
easily more than a thousand books - and one of his questions was "are there
any books in the house?" I failed to respond and he asked the question
again!

JohnnyB

On 15 September 2012 02:20, stamps <stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com> wrote:

> Well, evidently you ran into some bureaucrat whose whole existence was
> premised on filling out forms correctly, regardless of reality. I have run
> into similar people in my life and find the best response is to nod
> politely
> and say "Yes, sir", the afterwards go back to doing whatever you were doing
> in the first place.
>
> --
> Salsgiver.com Webmail
>
> Fiber Optic Internet and Voice are here!
> Find out more at http://www.gotlit.com
>
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: John Barrs <johnnybarrs (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
> To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> Sent: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:51:19 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Rnd 2337 XENIA Reminder
>
> > Ah, but your father wasn't forced...
> > I was admitted to USA on a student visa on the specific written condition
> > that I did not get a social security number (so that I wouldn't use
> social
> > security I suppose). When I came to leave the USA then IRS would not
> > allow me to leave until they had checked that I didn't owe any
> > taxes. One cannot fill in their forms (or one could not do so back
> > back then) without having a social security number. I was hailed
> > (hauled) before some local official who was convinced that I was
> > dodging some sort of column somewhere and had to be "dealt with"!.
> > Dealing with me involved him filling in the forms because he
> > obviously either didn't think I was capable or he thought that I
> > was untrustworthy. I opt for his thinking I was incapable because he
> > obviously trusted my verbal answers! (Reason for my leaving or tying
> > to leave the USA was that I had just finished a masters degree and
> > graduated msgns cum laude) Eventually he used a SS number of all
> > zeros so that he could fill in his forms but he would not accept the
> > no middle name - hence the "None" Eventually, once I was back here
> > in UK they sent me a fairly large cheque for negative income-tax -
> > I did not cash it because I felt unhappy with the idea that y'all
> > owed me money. The SS number caused problems later... the people I
> > hsd lived with when I was studying were suing IRS for $29M and IRS
> > tried it on by claiming I hadn't paid SS so to avoid their
> > weaselling they paid 3 years of SS for me on the all zero's number.
> > As I understand it, when he won his case he was also paid back the
> > SS monies falsely demanded on a non-existing SS number because SS
> > had no number to credit it to.
> >
> > John None Barrs
> >
> > On 14 September 2012 19:00, France International/Mike Shefler <
> > stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com> wrote:
> >
> > > My father lived a long and productive life without a middle name. And
> he
> > > had no trouble from the IRS or the US Army about it either.
> > > I wonder how Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María
> de
> > > los Remedios Crispiniano de la Santísima Trinidad (otherwise known as
> > > Picasso) filled out his forms?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/14/2012 1:32 PM, John Barrs wrote:
> > >
> > >> my first middle name is "None" because American IRS did not accept the
> > >> fact that I did not have a middle name - in 1976 their forms demanded
> an
> > >> entry - I have letters addressed to John None Barrs)
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
>

[Guerri Stevens]

Perhaps the person had never seen a book and therefore didn't recognize
your collection of them. I am surprised the education people didn't
demand a *list* of the books!

Guerri

John Barrs wrote:
> I think the best form-filler I came across was when we were
> home-schooliong one of our children. We had an inspector from the
> education people come to check us out and and fill in his forms. We were
> sitting in a room where 3 of the four walls were floor-to-ceiling
> bookshelves,all filled with books - easily more than a thousand books -
> and one of his questions was "are there any books in the house?" I
> failed to respond and he asked the question again!

[—Keith Hale—]

OK, i am late digging into juicy topics here.

Ark mosquitoes: i am wrecked to recall that i have long-lost my great
old hardback of Mark Twain's "Letters from the Earth" - and rather
dubious as to the accuracy of my own memory. But what i recall was
him pondering whether God saw to it that mosquitoes were included on
the Ark - and that He must have done. As for why - to spread disease!
Man is mortal and needs to remain so! This was seminal in my own
personal philosophy!

Mr. None: i have been battling an unbeatable windmill involving being
called by my name: Keith Hale. Not even my own employer (such as they
are) can manage it. Why? Because my full name is "Stewart Keith
Hale". And while that was fine for the first 4 decades of my life
before computers controlled the Earth - now i am forced to
self-identify as "Stewart" if i want to work at all. I half-joke
about wanting to become the "Rosa Parks of being called by my own
name" and it is a subject i can rail on about for days, likely. I've
told them my long-time epigram: "My friends call me 'Keith'. My
ENEMIES* call me 'Stewart'." (*Debt collectors and the like.) Your
situation is oddly similar, even though the only trouble you would
have with my employer (and insurance company, etc.) is if you had
lived your whole life going by "None".

[France International/Mike Shefler]

Well my personal philosophy is that man is NOT the be-all and end-all of
the universe and God probably had very good reasons of his own for
"creating" the mosquito.

On 9/15/2012 7:05 AM, —Keith Hale— wrote:
> But what i recall was
> him pondering whether God saw to it that mosquitoes were included on
> the Ark - and that He must have done.