Subject:
|
Encoding? (was Re: This isn't good enough!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:20:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
444 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> Todd Lehman wrote:
> > In lugnet.loc.au, Jamie Obrien writes:
> > > Hmmm, so if Larry == ++Lar what does *(++Lar) resolve too?
> > I dunno but I don't wanna be anywhere near a --(*(++Lar)) ;-)
Me either, sounds like what you'd get sending me through the Moebus machine the
wrong way once (1).
>
> Looks like we need a new entry in the Lego Code. (1) Here's my .02 pesos:
>
> <SNIP ATTITUDE="tongue *FIRMLY* in cheek">
>
> *LARRY P*
You people have way too much free time!
>
> If you've read LUGNET, chances are you've read something by Larry
> Pieniazek. Express how you feel about Larry's posts, Larry's philosophy,
> or Larry's socks.
(2)
> The cause for the unusual prefix notation was lost to
> the mists of history, but is believed to have something to do with the
> founding fathers or blue hoppers, or something like that.
>
> ---Lar I'm Scott Arthur.
No no, it's "I'm Lorbaat!"... Remember, Scott Arthur was right about something
once... the time that he agreed with me, remember?
1 - _Doorways in the Sand_, Roger Zelazny
++Lar ... 2 - who is currently down to one pair of clean socks left, and has a
strong feeling about that!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Encoding? (was Re: This isn't good enough!
|
| (...) Yeah, well...yeah. Fortunately, it was at my employer's expense. (...) Hey, I've been right more times than that. At *leat* twice. (...) I've been climbing all up and down the used book stores in the area, and haven't been able to ind much (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
