| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
03 Apr 2004 03:48:38 AM |
| Object: |
Keep the Bunsens burning |
Keep the Bunsens burning
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1184412,00.html
Patricia Fara shows in Pandora's Breeches how women were instrumental
in furthering scientific discoveries, even if it was a role deemed
unnatural by men
Judith Hawley
Saturday April 3, 2004
The Guardian
Pandora's Breeches: Women, Science and Power in the Enlightenment
by Patricia Fara
274pp, Pimlico, £12.50
In a provocative comparison, Patricia Fara declares that "Official
accounts of Soviet Russia avoided mentioning Josef Stalin. In
contrast, women have not been written out of the history of science:
they have never been written in." Women may have been excluded from
the traditional historical record, but it is simply not the case, Fara
demonstrates, that they were excluded from scientific activity in the
18th century. Pandora's Breeches presents so many examples of women
active in science that the pronouncements of those who declared women
were unscientific seem less like an injunction than a desperate
attempt to lock the door after the horse has bolted.
women science
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=women+science&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=women+science&sa=N&tab=nw
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=women+science&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=women%20science&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Enlightenment
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Enlightenment&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=gn&q=Enlightenment&sa=N&tab=nw
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Enlightenment&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Enlightenment&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Enemies of Science & Knowledge
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Enemies%20of%20Science%20%26%20Knowledge&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
.
|
|
| User: "Victor Purinton" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
03 Apr 2004 01:17:43 PM |
|
|
(maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0404030159.7d6e7013@posting.google.com>...
Keep the Bunsens burning
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1184412,00.html
Patricia Fara shows in Pandora's Breeches how women were instrumental
in furthering scientific discoveries, even if it was a role deemed
unnatural by men
Judith Hawley
Saturday April 3, 2004
The Guardian
Pandora's Breeches: Women, Science and Power in the Enlightenment
by Patricia Fara
274pp, Pimlico, £12.50
In a provocative comparison, Patricia Fara declares that "Official
accounts of Soviet Russia avoided mentioning Josef Stalin. In
contrast, women have not been written out of the history of science:
they have never been written in." Women may have been excluded from
the traditional historical record, but it is simply not the case, Fara
demonstrates, that they were excluded from scientific activity in the
18th century. Pandora's Breeches presents so many examples of women
active in science that the pronouncements of those who declared women
were unscientific seem less like an injunction than a desperate
attempt to lock the door after the horse has bolted.
I'm all for the woman in the lab. Especially if she has cute bunsens.
**rimshot**
(No, I'm not a sexist pig - I just play one on usenet.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Harper" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
05 Apr 2004 02:50:48 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:17:43 +0000, Victor Purinton wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
news:<18510aff.0404030159.7d6e7013@posting.google.com>...
Keep the Bunsens burning
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1184412,00.html
Patricia Fara shows in Pandora's Breeches how women were instrumental in
furthering scientific discoveries, even if it was a role deemed
unnatural by men
Judith Hawley
Saturday April 3, 2004
The Guardian
Pandora's Breeches: Women, Science and Power in the Enlightenment by
Patricia Fara
274pp, Pimlico, £12.50
In a provocative comparison, Patricia Fara declares that "Official
accounts of Soviet Russia avoided mentioning Josef Stalin. In contrast,
women have not been written out of the history of science: they have
never been written in." Women may have been excluded from the
traditional historical record, but it is simply not the case, Fara
demonstrates, that they were excluded from scientific activity in the
18th century. Pandora's Breeches presents so many examples of women
active in science that the pronouncements of those who declared women
were unscientific seem less like an injunction than a desperate attempt
to lock the door after the horse has bolted.
I'm all for the woman in the lab. Especially if she has cute bunsens.
**rimshot**
(No, I'm not a sexist pig - I just play one on usenet.)
It always gets me how guys will comment about not wanting to be around
women in whatever field they're in, as if having women in your office/work
environment/lab/et cetera is going to make it all "feminine" and make you
a pansy little wussy all by itself. Personally, I look at it the other
way: being a strongly heterosexual young male (who is engaged, by the way)
I'd much rather be surrounded by women at work than by men. Certainly
there are the visuals to think of (all women are beautiful; some just
don't know it yet), but I'm thinking more in terms of the different
thought patterns of women and men. I _know_ how I think, and so another
person who thinks like me is less likely to have a differening point of
view on a work-related issue. Being surrounded by women helps to give me
ideas that I might not have gotten otherwise.
--
In the Beginning, was the Command Line...
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
05 Apr 2004 03:45:37 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Harper" <daniel_harper@terralink.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.04.05.08.01.07.849912@terralink.net>...
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:17:43 +0000, Victor Purinton wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
news:<18510aff.0404030159.7d6e7013@posting.google.com>...
Keep the Bunsens burning
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1184412,00.html
Patricia Fara shows in Pandora's Breeches how women were instrumental in
furthering scientific discoveries, even if it was a role deemed
unnatural by men
Judith Hawley
Saturday April 3, 2004
The Guardian
Pandora's Breeches: Women, Science and Power in the Enlightenment by
Patricia Fara
274pp, Pimlico, £12.50
In a provocative comparison, Patricia Fara declares that "Official
accounts of Soviet Russia avoided mentioning Josef Stalin. In contrast,
women have not been written out of the history of science: they have
never been written in." Women may have been excluded from the
traditional historical record, but it is simply not the case, Fara
demonstrates, that they were excluded from scientific activity in the
18th century. Pandora's Breeches presents so many examples of women
active in science that the pronouncements of those who declared women
were unscientific seem less like an injunction than a desperate attempt
to lock the door after the horse has bolted.
I'm all for the woman in the lab. Especially if she has cute bunsens.
**rimshot**
(No, I'm not a sexist pig - I just play one on usenet.)
It always gets me how guys will comment about not wanting to be around
women in whatever field they're in, as if having women in your office/work
environment/lab/et cetera is going to make it all "feminine" and make you
a pansy little wussy all by itself. Personally, I look at it the other
way: being a strongly heterosexual young male (who is engaged, by the way)
I'd much rather be surrounded by women at work than by men. Certainly
there are the visuals to think of (all women are beautiful; some just
don't know it yet), but I'm thinking more in terms of the different
thought patterns of women and men. I _know_ how I think, and so another
person who thinks like me is less likely to have a differening point of
view on a work-related issue. Being surrounded by women helps to give me
ideas that I might not have gotten otherwise.
There are plenty of women in vertebrate palaeontology (in the UK, at
least). What's more, if you spend a lot of time thinking about sex and
reprodiction, it's all part of the job.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louis" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
14 Apr 2004 12:34:24 PM |
|
|
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0404051245.343e6969@posting.google.com>...
"Daniel Harper" <daniel_harper@terralink.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.04.05.08.01.07.849912@terralink.net>...
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:17:43 +0000, Victor Purinton wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
news:<18510aff.0404030159.7d6e7013@posting.google.com>...
Keep the Bunsens burning
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1184412,00.html
Patricia Fara shows in Pandora's Breeches how women were instrumental in
furthering scientific discoveries, even if it was a role deemed
unnatural by men
Judith Hawley
Saturday April 3, 2004
The Guardian
Pandora's Breeches: Women, Science and Power in the Enlightenment by
Patricia Fara
274pp, Pimlico, £12.50
In a provocative comparison, Patricia Fara declares that "Official
accounts of Soviet Russia avoided mentioning Josef Stalin. In contrast,
women have not been written out of the history of science: they have
never been written in." Women may have been excluded from the
traditional historical record, but it is simply not the case, Fara
demonstrates, that they were excluded from scientific activity in the
18th century. Pandora's Breeches presents so many examples of women
active in science that the pronouncements of those who declared women
were unscientific seem less like an injunction than a desperate attempt
to lock the door after the horse has bolted.
I'm all for the woman in the lab. Especially if she has cute bunsens.
**rimshot**
(No, I'm not a sexist pig - I just play one on usenet.)
It always gets me how guys will comment about not wanting to be around
women in whatever field they're in, as if having women in your office/work
environment/lab/et cetera is going to make it all "feminine" and make you
a pansy little wussy all by itself. Personally, I look at it the other
way: being a strongly heterosexual young male (who is engaged, by the way)
I'd much rather be surrounded by women at work than by men. Certainly
there are the visuals to think of (all women are beautiful; some just
don't know it yet), but I'm thinking more in terms of the different
thought patterns of women and men. I _know_ how I think, and so another
person who thinks like me is less likely to have a differening point of
view on a work-related issue. Being surrounded by women helps to give me
ideas that I might not have gotten otherwise.
There are plenty of women in vertebrate palaeontology (in the UK, at
least). What's more, if you spend a lot of time thinking about sex and
reprodiction, it's all part of the job.
RF
Sadly as one moves away from the biological sciences and into the
physical sciences the ladies get rarer, or at least uglier! ;-) <ducks
flying flasks etc>
As postgrad demonstrators in undergrad chem labs my buddies and I were
always amused by the female:male ratio and the honey:hound ratio.
These ratios changed from relatively high to relatively low when the
undergrad cohort changed from biological chemistry to chemistry with
physics. I should point out that in the interest of fairness I
consulted my female colleagues at the time, and they assured me that
the same could be said for the male underhgrads.
Now I don't wish to court controversy here, but is it possible that
the old conundrum about human pulchritude being inversely proportional
to intellect is true?
Louis (modestly throwing the curve!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
15 Apr 2004 02:14:07 AM |
|
|
(Louis) wrote in message news:<761bf1a.0404140934.208038f7@posting.google.com>...
<snipped>
Now I don't wish to court controversy here, but is it possible that
the old conundrum about human pulchritude being inversely proportional
to intellect is true?
Louis (modestly throwing the curve!)
No.
Definitely not.
Quite definitely not.
Sigh
There's this woman....
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louis" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
15 Apr 2004 10:17:34 AM |
|
|
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0404142315.3dc24de2@posting.google.com>...
thethinker111@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote in message news:<761bf1a.0404140934.208038f7@posting.google.com>...
<snipped>
Now I don't wish to court controversy here, but is it possible that
the old conundrum about human pulchritude being inversely proportional
to intellect is true?
Louis (modestly throwing the curve!)
No.
Definitely not.
Quite definitely not.
Sigh
There's this woman....
RF
In all seriousness I am well aware that human pulchritude and
intellect are not inversely proportional. However it is an oft
postulated piece of "common sense".
After all, I am not going to say they are inversely proportional
because I am married to a beautiful woman with a PhD.........A
beautiful, intelligent woman with a PhD, stood right behind me with a
piece of 2 by 4 and a strange look in her eye.
Louis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
15 Apr 2004 04:46:36 PM |
|
|
(Louis) wrote in message news:<761bf1a.0404150719.2f11fee3@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0404142315.3dc24de2@posting.google.com>...
(Louis) wrote in message news:<761bf1a.0404140934.208038f7@posting.google.com>...
<snipped>
Now I don't wish to court controversy here, but is it possible that
the old conundrum about human pulchritude being inversely proportional
to intellect is true?
Louis (modestly throwing the curve!)
No.
Definitely not.
Quite definitely not.
Sigh
There's this woman....
RF
In all seriousness I am well aware that human pulchritude and
intellect are not inversely proportional. However it is an oft
postulated piece of "common sense".
After all, I am not going to say they are inversely proportional
because I am married to a beautiful woman with a PhD.........A
beautiful, intelligent woman with a PhD, stood right behind me with a
piece of 2 by 4 and a strange look in her eye.
Louis
Isn't it amazing how a woman's looks are improved by her holding a
piece of 2 by 4, and having a strange look in her eyes? I always feel
moved to comment on my wife's kindness and beauty when she's like
that.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Victor Purinton" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
16 Apr 2004 10:17:52 AM |
|
|
(Louis) wrote in message news:<761bf1a.0404140934.208038f7@posting.google.com>...
Now I don't wish to court controversy here, but is it possible that
the old conundrum about human pulchritude being inversely proportional
to intellect is true?
Louis (modestly throwing the curve!)
I think there are competing forces here. On the one hand, a very
pretty woman might not have to rely in her wits as much because she is
confident she can secure a good future by finding a successful man.
On the other hand, that successful man is likely to be smart, and that
intelligence will be passed on the the hot daughters, resulting in the
highly desirable brain-babe. On the balance, I think a very pretty
woman is likely to be smarter than the average woman because of the
latter effect.
I work in biotech. Lots of hotties with brains. It's heaven!
Victor, distracted.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
14 Apr 2004 09:54:59 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins I read this message from
thethinker111@hotmail.com (Louis):
[snip]
Now I don't wish to court controversy here, but is it possible that
the old conundrum about human pulchritude being inversely proportional
to intellect is true?
I doubt it. On the one hand it is likely that both looks and
intelligence are survival traits, and so would thrive
independently. OTO(larger)H both intelligence and looks tell you
much about heath. The traits are linked developmentally, if not
evolutionarily.
(What? Just-So story? Says who?)
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by arsonists who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors.
www.candles-museum.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louis" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
15 Apr 2004 03:35:50 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <matts2nopam@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<abur70hhcj293qmran7tg9oflgnbd701i7@4ax.com>...
In talk.origins I read this message from
thethinker111@hotmail.com (Louis):
[snip]
Now I don't wish to court controversy here, but is it possible that
the old conundrum about human pulchritude being inversely proportional
to intellect is true?
I doubt it. On the one hand it is likely that both looks and
intelligence are survival traits, and so would thrive
independently. OTO(larger)H both intelligence and looks tell you
much about heath. The traits are linked developmentally, if not
evolutionarily.
(What? Just-So story? Says who?)
<snip sig>
Ahh but what about the observable fact that beautiful people are
automatically responded to in a positive fashion (almost always at
least) and thus have less cause to develop what might be latent
evolved intelligence?
A nice looking young lady can winsomely wrap unsuspecting men around
her finger more often than not. While I would agree that this is very
intelligent behavior and excellent use of personal resources, I claim
that development of this facet of her intellect would impact adversely
on the necessity for her to develop the more esoteric aspects of her
intellect. The same of course applies to a nice looking man with a
tight arse and nice shoulders! Why consider the depths of say quantum
physics, when one can attract a mate (indeed several) with an artfully
targeted flutter of the eyelashes?
Louis (tongue fairly firmly in cheek)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
15 Apr 2004 08:02:29 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins I read this message from
thethinker111@hotmail.com (Louis):
Matt Silberstein <matts2nopam@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<abur70hhcj293qmran7tg9oflgnbd701i7@4ax.com>...
In talk.origins I read this message from
thethinker111@hotmail.com (Louis):
[snip]
Now I don't wish to court controversy here, but is it possible that
the old conundrum about human pulchritude being inversely proportional
to intellect is true?
I doubt it. On the one hand it is likely that both looks and
intelligence are survival traits, and so would thrive
independently. OTO(larger)H both intelligence and looks tell you
much about heath. The traits are linked developmentally, if not
evolutionarily.
(What? Just-So story? Says who?)
<snip sig>
Ahh but what about the observable fact that beautiful people are
automatically responded to in a positive fashion (almost always at
least) and thus have less cause to develop what might be latent
evolved intelligence?
This then requires that we determine if intelligence refers to
(mystical?) potential or actual usage and then the conversation
decays. Instead I will counter claim, absent any actual evidence,
that good looks opens doors and allows one to express their
intelligence. I say this with tongue not entirely in cheek. Good,
but no great looks, like height, help people succeed. The good
looking one is listened to more often, followed more often, etc.
I do contend that this allows one more opportunities, if not more
need, to use their "native" intelligence. And certainly more
opportunities to build their abilities.
A nice looking young lady can winsomely wrap unsuspecting men around
her finger more often than not. While I would agree that this is very
intelligent behavior and excellent use of personal resources, I claim
that development of this facet of her intellect would impact adversely
on the necessity for her to develop the more esoteric aspects of her
intellect. The same of course applies to a nice looking man with a
tight arse and nice shoulders! Why consider the depths of say quantum
physics, when one can attract a mate (indeed several) with an artfully
targeted flutter of the eyelashes?
Louis (tongue fairly firmly in cheek)
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by arsonists who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors.
www.candles-museum.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
14 Apr 2004 12:40:56 PM |
|
|
Louis wrote:
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb43=
7.0404051245.343e6969@posting.google.com>...
=20
"Daniel Harper" <daniel_harper@terralink.net> wrote in message news:<pa=
n.2004.04.05.08.01.07.849912@terralink.net>...
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:17:43 +0000, Victor Purinton wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
news:<18510aff.0404030159.7d6e7013@posting.google.com>...
Keep the Bunsens burning
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1184412,00.html
Patricia Fara shows in Pandora's Breeches how women were instrumenta=
l in
furthering scientific discoveries, even if it was a role deemed
unnatural by men
Judith Hawley
Saturday April 3, 2004
The Guardian
Pandora's Breeches: Women, Science and Power in the Enlightenment by
Patricia Fara
274pp, Pimlico, =A312.50
In a provocative comparison, Patricia Fara declares that "Official
accounts of Soviet Russia avoided mentioning Josef Stalin. In contra=
st,
women have not been written out of the history of science: they have
never been written in." Women may have been excluded from the
traditional historical record, but it is simply not the case, Fara
demonstrates, that they were excluded from scientific activity in th=
e
18th century. Pandora's Breeches presents so many examples of women
active in science that the pronouncements of those who declared wome=
n
were unscientific seem less like an injunction than a desperate atte=
mpt
to lock the door after the horse has bolted.
I'm all for the woman in the lab. Especially if she has cute bunsens.
**rimshot**
(No, I'm not a sexist pig - I just play one on usenet.)
It always gets me how guys will comment about not wanting to be around
women in whatever field they're in, as if having women in your office/=
work
environment/lab/et cetera is going to make it all "feminine" and make =
you
a pansy little wussy all by itself. Personally, I look at it the other
way: being a strongly heterosexual young male (who is engaged, by the =
way)
I'd much rather be surrounded by women at work than by men. Certainly
there are the visuals to think of (all women are beautiful; some just
don't know it yet), but I'm thinking more in terms of the different
thought patterns of women and men. I _know_ how I think, and so anothe=
r
person who thinks like me is less likely to have a differening point o=
f
view on a work-related issue. Being surrounded by women helps to give =
me
ideas that I might not have gotten otherwise.
There are plenty of women in vertebrate palaeontology (in the UK, at
least). What's more, if you spend a lot of time thinking about sex and
reprodiction, it's all part of the job.
RF
=20
=20
Sadly as one moves away from the biological sciences and into the
physical sciences the ladies get rarer, or at least uglier! ;-) <ducks
flying flasks etc>
=20
As postgrad demonstrators in undergrad chem labs my buddies and I were
always amused by the female:male ratio and the honey:hound ratio.
These ratios changed from relatively high to relatively low when the
undergrad cohort changed from biological chemistry to chemistry with
physics. I should point out that in the interest of fairness I
consulted my female colleagues at the time, and they assured me that
the same could be said for the male underhgrads.
=20
Now I don't wish to court controversy here, but is it possible that
the old conundrum about human pulchritude being inversely proportional
to intellect is true?
=20
Louis (modestly throwing the curve!)
=20
I remember the TA I had in one of the few Chem classes I took in=20
college. She spent a lot of time talking about significant figures in=20
our results, but I couldn't concentrate for studying hers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Harper" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
06 Apr 2004 02:13:47 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 20:45:37 +0000, Richard Forrest wrote:
"Daniel Harper" <daniel_harper@terralink.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.04.05.08.01.07.849912@terralink.net>...
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:17:43 +0000, Victor Purinton wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
news:<18510aff.0404030159.7d6e7013@posting.google.com>...
Keep the Bunsens burning
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1184412,00.html
Patricia Fara shows in Pandora's Breeches how women were instrumental
in furthering scientific discoveries, even if it was a role deemed
unnatural by men
Judith Hawley
Saturday April 3, 2004
The Guardian
Pandora's Breeches: Women, Science and Power in the Enlightenment by
Patricia Fara
274pp, Pimlico, £12.50
In a provocative comparison, Patricia Fara declares that "Official
accounts of Soviet Russia avoided mentioning Josef Stalin. In
contrast, women have not been written out of the history of science:
they have never been written in." Women may have been excluded from
the traditional historical record, but it is simply not the case,
Fara demonstrates, that they were excluded from scientific activity
in the 18th century. Pandora's Breeches presents so many examples of
women active in science that the pronouncements of those who declared
women were unscientific seem less like an injunction than a desperate
attempt to lock the door after the horse has bolted.
I'm all for the woman in the lab. Especially if she has cute bunsens.
**rimshot**
(No, I'm not a sexist pig - I just play one on usenet.)
It always gets me how guys will comment about not wanting to be around
women in whatever field they're in, as if having women in your
office/work environment/lab/et cetera is going to make it all "feminine"
and make you a pansy little wussy all by itself. Personally, I look at
it the other way: being a strongly heterosexual young male (who is
engaged, by the way) I'd much rather be surrounded by women at work than
by men. Certainly there are the visuals to think of (all women are
beautiful; some just don't know it yet), but I'm thinking more in terms
of the different thought patterns of women and men. I _know_ how I
think, and so another person who thinks like me is less likely to have a
differening point of view on a work-related issue. Being surrounded by
women helps to give me ideas that I might not have gotten otherwise.
There are plenty of women in vertebrate palaeontology (in the UK, at
least). What's more, if you spend a lot of time thinking about sex and
reprodiction, it's all part of the job.
RF
Hmm.. Might it be possible to get certain extracurricular activities
accepted for course credit?
--
In the Beginning, was the Command Line...
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
06 Apr 2004 08:31:14 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Harper" <daniel_harper@terralink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.06.19.24.46.865269@terralink.net...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 20:45:37 +0000, Richard Forrest wrote:
"Daniel Harper" <daniel_harper@terralink.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.04.05.08.01.07.849912@terralink.net>...
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:17:43 +0000, Victor Purinton wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
news:<18510aff.0404030159.7d6e7013@posting.google.com>...
Keep the Bunsens burning
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1184412,00.html
Patricia Fara shows in Pandora's Breeches how women were
instrumental
in furthering scientific discoveries, even if it was a role deemed
unnatural by men
Judith Hawley
Saturday April 3, 2004
The Guardian
Pandora's Breeches: Women, Science and Power in the Enlightenment by
Patricia Fara
274pp, Pimlico, £12.50
In a provocative comparison, Patricia Fara declares that "Official
accounts of Soviet Russia avoided mentioning Josef Stalin. In
contrast, women have not been written out of the history of science:
they have never been written in." Women may have been excluded from
the traditional historical record, but it is simply not the case,
Fara demonstrates, that they were excluded from scientific activity
in the 18th century. Pandora's Breeches presents so many examples of
women active in science that the pronouncements of those who
declared
women were unscientific seem less like an injunction than a
desperate
attempt to lock the door after the horse has bolted.
I'm all for the woman in the lab. Especially if she has cute
bunsens.
**rimshot**
(No, I'm not a sexist pig - I just play one on usenet.)
It always gets me how guys will comment about not wanting to be around
women in whatever field they're in, as if having women in your
office/work environment/lab/et cetera is going to make it all
"feminine"
and make you a pansy little wussy all by itself. Personally, I look at
it the other way: being a strongly heterosexual young male (who is
engaged, by the way) I'd much rather be surrounded by women at work
than
by men. Certainly there are the visuals to think of (all women are
beautiful; some just don't know it yet), but I'm thinking more in terms
of the different thought patterns of women and men. I _know_ how I
think, and so another person who thinks like me is less likely to have
a
differening point of view on a work-related issue. Being surrounded by
women helps to give me ideas that I might not have gotten otherwise.
There are plenty of women in vertebrate palaeontology (in the UK, at
least). What's more, if you spend a lot of time thinking about sex and
reprodiction, it's all part of the job.
RF
Hmm.. Might it be possible to get certain extracurricular activities
accepted for course credit?
--
In the Beginning, was the Command Line...
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
--
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority of
the wealthy.
Greg Bear
Gary Bohn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
13 Apr 2004 08:05:30 PM |
|
|
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
13 Apr 2004 08:49:30 PM |
|
|
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-2AA290.21070413042004@reader2.panix.com...
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
I would rather Cobol things together.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
13 Apr 2004 09:00:14 PM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-2AA290.21070413042004@reader2.panix.com...
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
I would rather Cobol things together.
Such declarations cannot be believed. We know where they are headered.
--
John I Did COBOL Once, but Got Better Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim M" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
13 Apr 2004 10:40:58 PM |
|
|
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gc8elp.1nyewx8tm79rxN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Gary Bohn <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-2AA290.21070413042004@reader2.panix.com...
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
I would rather Cobol things together.
Such declarations cannot be believed. We know where they are headered.
I C what you mean. I'd rather things be kept BASIC.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
14 Apr 2004 06:55:57 AM |
|
|
"Tim M" <scott1328@cox.spammerssuck.net> wrote in news:Aq2fc.5711
$GT3.3492@okepread05:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gc8elp.1nyewx8tm79rxN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Gary Bohn <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-2AA290.21070413042004@reader2.panix.com...
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
I would rather Cobol things together.
Such declarations cannot be believed. We know where they are
headered.
I C what you mean. I'd rather things be kept BASIC.
This thread is beginning to SNOBOL.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
14 Apr 2004 09:22:03 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB50F8196C8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
"Tim M" <scott1328@cox.spammerssuck.net> wrote in news:Aq2fc.5711
$GT3.3492@okepread05:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gc8elp.1nyewx8tm79rxN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Gary Bohn <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-2AA290.21070413042004@reader2.panix.com...
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
I would rather Cobol things together.
Such declarations cannot be believed. We know where they are
headered.
I C what you mean. I'd rather things be kept BASIC.
This thread is beginning to SNOBOL.
Anyone want to place a Pascal Wager on how many lines?
Boikat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
15 Apr 2004 12:52:03 AM |
|
|
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote in message news:<eJbfc.42190$Lh2.24076@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB50F8196C8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
"Tim M" <scott1328@cox.spammerssuck.net> wrote in news:Aq2fc.5711
$GT3.3492@okepread05:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gc8elp.1nyewx8tm79rxN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Gary Bohn <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-2AA290.21070413042004@reader2.panix.com...
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
I would rather Cobol things together.
Such declarations cannot be believed. We know where they are
headered.
I C what you mean. I'd rather things be kept BASIC.
This thread is beginning to SNOBOL.
Anyone want to place a Pascal Wager on how many lines?
Boikat
I would have to read your FORTRAN to find out the answer to that.
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Believers are justified in all things." -- Acts 13:39
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nantko Schanssema" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
14 Apr 2004 09:35:07 AM |
|
|
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB50F8196C8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
"Tim M" <scott1328@cox.spammerssuck.net> wrote in news:Aq2fc.5711
$GT3.3492@okepread05:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gc8elp.1nyewx8tm79rxN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Gary Bohn <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-2AA290.21070413042004@reader2.panix.com...
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
I would rather Cobol things together.
Such declarations cannot be believed. We know where they are headered.
I C what you mean. I'd rather things be kept BASIC.
This thread is beginning to SNOBOL.
Anyone want to place a Pascal Wager on how many lines?
Too many, Ada thunk.
regards,
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~nantko/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
14 Apr 2004 11:38:19 AM |
|
|
Nantko Schanssema <nantko@xs4all.nl> wrote in
news:3viq70l4k9pu0t262jrfhmrthpt4o9fnct@4ax.com:
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB50F8196C8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
"Tim M" <scott1328@cox.spammerssuck.net> wrote in news:Aq2fc.5711
$GT3.3492@okepread05:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gc8elp.1nyewx8tm79rxN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Gary Bohn <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-2AA290.21070413042004@reader2.panix.com...
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
I would rather Cobol things together.
Such declarations cannot be believed. We know where they are
headered.
I C what you mean. I'd rather things be kept BASIC.
This thread is beginning to SNOBOL.
Anyone want to place a Pascal Wager on how many lines?
Too many, Ada thunk.
I'm sorry, I'm late for Assembly.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
14 Apr 2004 11:54:45 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB80CE3E824fstone69@207.69.154.201...
Nantko Schanssema <nantko@xs4all.nl> wrote in
news:3viq70l4k9pu0t262jrfhmrthpt4o9fnct@4ax.com:
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB50F8196C8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
"Tim M" <scott1328@cox.spammerssuck.net> wrote in news:Aq2fc.5711
$GT3.3492@okepread05:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gc8elp.1nyewx8tm79rxN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Gary Bohn <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-2AA290.21070413042004@reader2.panix.com...
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
I would rather Cobol things together.
Such declarations cannot be believed. We know where they are
headered.
I C what you mean. I'd rather things be kept BASIC.
This thread is beginning to SNOBOL.
Anyone want to place a Pascal Wager on how many lines?
Too many, Ada thunk.
I'm sorry, I'm late for Assembly.
I do hope someone is compiling this..
Boikat (Who works on a 30 year old B-52H simulator run by a Harris "slash-6"
computer which has three neat little rows (24 switches in each) of paddle
switches for entering diagnostic addresses, registers, start and stop memory
addresses... UGH!!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
15 Apr 2004 01:02:44 AM |
|
|
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote in message news:<__dfc.23845$951.4304@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB80CE3E824fstone69@207.69.154.201...
Nantko Schanssema <nantko@xs4all.nl> wrote in
news:3viq70l4k9pu0t262jrfhmrthpt4o9fnct@4ax.com:
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB50F8196C8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
"Tim M" <scott1328@cox.spammerssuck.net> wrote in news:Aq2fc.5711
$GT3.3492@okepread05:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gc8elp.1nyewx8tm79rxN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Gary Bohn <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-2AA290.21070413042004@reader2.panix.com...
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
I would rather Cobol things together.
Such declarations cannot be believed. We know where they are
headered.
I C what you mean. I'd rather things be kept BASIC.
This thread is beginning to SNOBOL.
Anyone want to place a Pascal Wager on how many lines?
Too many, Ada thunk.
I'm sorry, I'm late for Assembly.
I do hope someone is compiling this..
Boikat (Who works on a 30 year old B-52H simulator run by a Harris "slash-6"
computer which has three neat little rows (24 switches in each) of paddle
switches for entering diagnostic addresses, registers, start and stop memory
addresses... UGH!!)
Excuse me... is this a scheduled pun thread? I mean... is it on the program?
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who the f**k is General Failure and why is he reading my disk?!?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
15 Apr 2004 11:30:08 AM |
|
|
"Eros" <eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab0de77f.0404142204.7d22acda@posting.google.com...
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote in message
news:<__dfc.23845$951.4304@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB80CE3E824fstone69@207.69.154.201...
Nantko Schanssema <nantko@xs4all.nl> wrote in
news:3viq70l4k9pu0t262jrfhmrthpt4o9fnct@4ax.com:
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB50F8196C8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
"Tim M" <scott1328@cox.spammerssuck.net> wrote in news:Aq2fc.5711
$GT3.3492@okepread05:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gc8elp.1nyewx8tm79rxN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Gary Bohn <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-2AA290.21070413042004@reader2.panix.com...
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
I would rather Cobol things together.
Such declarations cannot be believed. We know where they are
headered.
I C what you mean. I'd rather things be kept BASIC.
This thread is beginning to SNOBOL.
Anyone want to place a Pascal Wager on how many lines?
Too many, Ada thunk.
I'm sorry, I'm late for Assembly.
I do hope someone is compiling this..
Boikat (Who works on a 30 year old B-52H simulator run by a Harris
"slash-6"
computer which has three neat little rows (24 switches in each) of
paddle
switches for entering diagnostic addresses, registers, start and stop
memory
addresses... UGH!!)
Excuse me... is this a scheduled pun thread? I mean... is it on the
program?
Negative. But it's probably prone to interupts and enables.
Boikat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
15 Apr 2004 09:49:55 PM |
|
|
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote in message news:<WLyfc.18503$Yw5.11815@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
"Eros" <eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab0de77f.0404142204.7d22acda@posting.google.com...
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote in message
news:<__dfc.23845$951.4304@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB80CE3E824fstone69@207.69.154.201...
Nantko Schanssema <nantko@xs4all.nl> wrote in
news:3viq70l4k9pu0t262jrfhmrthpt4o9fnct@4ax.com:
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB50F8196C8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
"Tim M" <scott1328@cox.spammerssuck.net> wrote in news:Aq2fc.5711
$GT3.3492@okepread05:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gc8elp.1nyewx8tm79rxN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Gary Bohn <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-2AA290.21070413042004@reader2.panix.com...
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
I would rather Cobol things together.
Such declarations cannot be believed. We know where they are
headered.
I C what you mean. I'd rather things be kept BASIC.
This thread is beginning to SNOBOL.
Anyone want to place a Pascal Wager on how many lines?
Too many, Ada thunk.
I'm sorry, I'm late for Assembly.
I do hope someone is compiling this..
Boikat (Who works on a 30 year old B-52H simulator run by a Harris
"slash-6"
computer which has three neat little rows (24 switches in each) of
paddle
switches for entering diagnostic addresses, registers, start and stop
memory
addresses... UGH!!)
Excuse me... is this a scheduled pun thread? I mean... is it on the
program?
Negative. But it's probably prone to interupts and enables.
Boikat
I see. So, it's still on the menu. Okay, as long as it isn't terminal
I guess I won't dump it then. I'll just monitor the situation and see
what interesting bits develop. You may have to prompt me from time to
time, though!
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Learning is good. Of course, I only learn things that I already
agree with."
– David Ford (Talk.Origins 12-Apr-2004)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
15 Apr 2004 07:01:02 AM |
|
|
(Eros) wrote in
news:ab0de77f.0404142204.7d22acda@posting.google.com:
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote in message
news:<__dfc.23845$951.4304@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB80CE3E824fstone69@207.69.154.201...
Nantko Schanssema <nantko@xs4all.nl> wrote in
news:3viq70l4k9pu0t262jrfhmrthpt4o9fnct@4ax.com:
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB50F8196C8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
"Tim M" <scott1328@cox.spammerssuck.net> wrote in
news:Aq2fc.5711 $GT3.3492@okepread05:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gc8elp.1nyewx8tm79rxN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Gary Bohn <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-2AA290.21070413042004@reader2.panix.com...
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
I would rather Cobol things together.
Such declarations cannot be believed. We know where they are
headered.
I C what you mean. I'd rather things be kept BASIC.
This thread is beginning to SNOBOL.
Anyone want to place a Pascal Wager on how many lines?
Too many, Ada thunk.
I'm sorry, I'm late for Assembly.
I do hope someone is compiling this..
Boikat (Who works on a 30 year old B-52H simulator run by a Harris
"slash-6" computer which has three neat little rows (24 switches in
each) of paddle switches for entering diagnostic addresses,
registers, start and stop memory addresses... UGH!!)
Excuse me... is this a scheduled pun thread? I mean... is it on the
program?
EROS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------- Who the f**k is General Failure and why is he reading my
disk?!?
GPF - Generic Pun Fault!
(R)etry or (I)gnore?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
17 Apr 2004 03:03:09 AM |
|
|
In article <ab0de77f.0404142204.7d22acda@posting.google.com>,
(Eros) wrote:
<Snip>
Who the f**k is General Failure and why is he reading my disk?!?
He's head of No Such Agency, and he is a buddy of W's ***** buddy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Keep the Bunsens burning |
14 Apr 2004 11:49:23 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Nantko Schanssema <nantko@xs4all.nl> wrote in
news:3viq70l4k9pu0t262jrfhmrthpt4o9fnct@4ax.com:
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB50F8196C8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
"Tim M" <scott1328@cox.spammerssuck.net> wrote in news:Aq2fc.5711
$GT3.3492@okepread05:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gc8elp.1nyewx8tm79rxN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Gary Bohn <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-2AA290.21070413042004@reader2.panix.com...
In article <1076mftqbj4o4c3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote:
<Snip>
In the beginning , it was the teletype and ASM.
PDP 11
Entering code thru the front panel switches. Forshooth!
I would rather Cobol things together.
Such declarations cannot be believed. We know where they are
headered.
I C what you mean. I'd rather things be kept BASIC.
This thread is beginning to SNOBOL.
Anyone want to place a Pascal Wager on how many lines?
Too many, Ada thunk.
I'm sorry, I'm late for Assembly.
Any Perls of wisdom to share with us?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
