Conference yukon::christian

    I saw this recently in my perigrinations around the network...
    
    
    The Seven Deadly Sins of Gilligan's Island theory is quite simple.
    Each of the seven characters on the island represents each of the
    seven deadly sins.  Now, this theory seems to fit upon initial
    inspection, there are technical difficulties when you get down to
    THE MAN himself, Gilligan.
    
    Run with me on this one...
    
        
    Most obvious is the Professor, who fits PRIDE to a T.  Any man who can
    make a ham radio out of some wire and two coconuts has to be pretty
    cocky.  (His character was later revised and given a series of his
    own, called MacGuyver".)
    
    For the sin of ENVY we need look no further than Maryann, who may have 
    worn those skimpy little tops, but could never achieve Ginger's
    glamour.  (As an interesting and completely irrelevant side note, a
    nationwide survey of college students a few years ago revealed that
    the professor and Maryann were voted the most likely couple to have
    'done it' on the island.)
    
    And who could doubt for a moment that Ginger is LUSTincarnate? Sure, 
    the kids were supposed to think she was ACTING, but we all know what
    being deprived episode after episode was doing to her.  You know and I
    know that glazed look wasn't boredom, my friends.
    
    What kind of person takes a trunk full of money on a three-hour
    cruise?  Mr Howell gets my vote for GREED.
    
    We are now left with three characters and three Deadly Sins.  We have
    Gilligan, the Skipper and Mrs Howell to whom we must match GLUTTONY,
    SLOTH and ANGER.  As you can see, there is a Gilligan problem here.
    
    Certainly we can further eliminate Mrs Howell from this equation by
    connecting her with SLOTH.  She didn't do sh** during her many years
    on the island and everybody knows it.
    
    This leaves ANGER and GLUTTONY, either of which the Skipper had no
    shortage.  He was, after all, a big guy with the tendency to hit
    Gilligan with his hat at least once an episode.  After much
    consideration, I have decided that he can easily do double-duty,
    covering the two remaining Deadly Sins.
    
    So here we have the Seven Deadly Sins trapped in an endlessly
    recurring Hell of hope followed by denial and despair, forced to
    live with each other in our TVs until the last re-run ends.  And who is
    their captor?  What keeps them trapped there?
    
    Gilligan.
    
    
        
    
    Gilligan is SATAN.  Think about it.

    
    (forwards removed)
    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Barbara E. Pierce wrote:
    
    Hi everyone--My friend's husband saw the actual letter at the
    Smithsonian!
    
    Barbara
     ___________________________________________________________________
    
    Ok, the story behind this... There's this nutball who digs things out
    of his back yard and sends the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian
    Institute, labeling them with scientific names, insisting that they
    are actual archeological finds. The really weird thing about these
    letters is that this guy really exists and does this in his spare
    time!  Anyway... here's a letter from the Smithsonian Institute when
    this man sent them one of his 'major finds'.
    ====================================================
    Paleoanthropology Division
    Smithsonian Institute
    207 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, DC 20078
    Dear Sir:
    
    Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D,
    layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull." We have
    given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to
    inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents
    "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County
    two million years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is
    the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has
    small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that
    you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this
    specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are
    familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to
    contradiction with your findings.
    
    However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of
    the specimen which might have tipped you off to it's modern origin:
    
    1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are
    typically fossilized bone.
    
    2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic
    centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified
    proto-hominids.
    
    3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent
    with the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous
    man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during
    that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing
    hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution,
    but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without
    going into too much detail, let us saythat:
    
    A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has
    chewed on.
    B. Clams don't have teeth.
    
    It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your
    request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to
    the heavy load our lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly
    due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent
    geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were
    produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce
    wildly inaccurate results
    
    Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National
    Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of
    assigning your specimen the scientific name "Australopithecus
    spiff-arino."  Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for
    the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted
    down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't
    really sound like it might be Latin.
    
    However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating
    specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil,
    it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of
    work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that
    our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the
    display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the
    Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will
    happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your
    back yard.
    
    We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you
    proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the
    Director to pay for it.  We are particularly interested in hearing you
    expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating
    fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes the
    excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered
    take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman
    automotive crescent wrench.
    
    
    Yours in Science,
    
    
    Harvey Rowe
    Curator, Antiquities
    
    
    

    I'm sure many have already seen this, but...
    
    ----------
    > From: Dave Barndt <dbarndt@ultranet.com>
    > To: Barndt, Dave <dbarndt@ultranet.com>
    > Subject: [Fwd: College (Engineering) Humor]
    > Date: Friday, February 28, 1997 1:37
    > 
    > John Drahos/US/3Com wrote:
    > > 
    > > A true story.  A thermodynamics professor had written a take home
    > > exam for his graduate students.  It had one question:
    > > 
    > > "Is hell exothermic or endothermic?  Support your answer with a
    > > proof."
    > > 
    > > Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law
    > > or some variant.  One student, however wrote the following:
    > > 
    > > First, we postulate that if souls exist, they must have some
    > > mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass.  So, at
    > > what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls
    > > leaving?
    > > 
    > > I think that we  can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it
    > > will not leave.  Therefore, no souls are leaving.
    > > 
    > > As for souls entering hell, lets look at the different religions that
    > > exist   in the world today.  Some of these religions state that if
    > > you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell.  Since
    > > there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong
    > > to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all
    > > souls go to hell.
    > > 
    > > With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of
    > > souls in hell to increase exponentially.
    > > 
    > > Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law
    > > states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay
    > > the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay
    > > constant.
    > > 
    > > So, if hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which
    > > souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will
    > > increase until all hell breaks loose.
    > > 
    > > Of course, if hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of
    > > souls in hell, than the temperature and pressure will drop until hell
    > > freezes over.
    > > 
    > > It was not revealed what grade the student received.

    Hi Harry,
    
      I had read that before.  Absolutely hilarious!  (Even for one
      who believes in conditional immortality and that the eternal
      fires are an unveiled revelation of God's glory.
    
      I liked your entry too Jill!  Funny!
    
    						Tony

    
    
    If a man speaks in the forest, and there's no woman around to hear
    him...Is he still wrong?
    
    
    :-)
    

    yes, of course! :-)

    Bob,  that's okay, brother.  It's good you don't get it. :-)
    
    

me laughing.....

      Oh, I just assume I'm wrong whenever I speak...
    
      ;-)

Given the activity in the "manhood" and "womanhood" notes, this article by
Dave Barry that I just got in the mail seems appropriate:

*****************************************************************************
On Women and clothing sizes.
By Dave Barry

    I believe that, in general, women are saner than men.
 
    For example: If you see people who have paid good money to stand in an
    outdoor stadium on a freezing December day wearing nothing on the upper
    halves of their bodies except paint, those people will be male.
 
    Without males, there would be no such sport as professional lawn mower
    racing.
 
    Also, there would be a 100 percent decline in the annual number of
    deaths related to efforts to shoot beer cans off of heads.
 
    There would be no such words as "wedgie" and "noogie."
 
    Also, if women were in charge of all the world's nations there would be
    -- I sincerely believe this -- virtually no military conflicts, and
    when there were a military conflict, everybody involved would feel just
    awful and there would soon be a high-level exchange of thoughtful notes
    written on greeting cards with flowers on the front, followed by a
    Peace Luncheon (which would be salads, with the dressing on the side).
 
    So I sincerely believe that women are wiser than men, with the
    exception of one key area, and that area is: clothing sizes. In this
    particular area, women are insane.
 
    When a man shops for clothes, his primary objective -- follow me
    closely here -- is to purchase clothes that fit on his particular body.
    A man will try on a pair of pants, and if those pants are too small,
    he'll try on a larger pair, and when he finds a pair that fits, he buys
    them. Most men do not spend a lot of time fretting about the size of
    their pants. Many men wear jeans with the size printed right on the
    back label, so that if you're standing behind a man in a supermarket
    line, you can read his waist and inseam size. A man could have, say, a
    52-inch waist and a 30-inch inseam, and his label will proudly display
    this information, which is basically the same thing as having a sign
    that says: "Howdy! My butt is the size of a Federal Express truck!"
 
    The situation is very different with women. When a woman shops for
    clothes, her primary objective is NOT to find clothes that fit her
    particular body. She would like for that to be the case, but her
    primary objective is to purchase clothes that are the size she wore
    when she was 19 years old. This will be some arbitrary number such as
    "8" or "10." Don't ask me "8" or "10" of what; that question
    has baffled scientists for centuries. All I know is that if a woman was
    a size 8 at age 19, she wants to be a size 8 now, and if a size 8
    outfit does not fit her, she will not move on to a larger size: She
    can't! Her size is 8, dammit! So she will keep trying on size 8 items,
    and unless they start fitting her, she will become extremely unhappy.
    She may take this unhappiness out on her husband, who is waiting
    patiently in the mall, perhaps browsing in the Sharper Image store,
    trying to think of how he could justify purchasing a pair of
    night-vision binoculars.
 
    "Hi!" he'll say, when his wife finds him. "You know how sometimes
    the electricity goes out at night and . . ."
 
    "Am I fat?" she'll ask, cutting him off.
 
    This is a very bad situation for the man, because if he answers
    "yes," she'll be angry because he's saying that she's fat, and if he
    answers "no," she'll be angry because HE'S OBVIOUSLY LYING BECAUSE
    NONE OF THE SIZE 8's FIT HER. There is no escape for the husband. I
    think a lot of unexplained disappearances occur because guys in malls
    see their wives unsuccessfully trying on outfits, and they realize
    their lives will be easier if, before their wives come out and demand
    to know whether they're fat, the guys just run off and join a UFO cult.
 
    The other day my wife, Michelle, was in a terrific mood, and you know
    why? Because she had successfully put on a size 6 outfit. She said this
    made her feel wonderful. She said, and this is a direct quote: "I
    wouldn't care if these pants were this big (here she held her arms far
    apart) as long as they have a `6' on them."
 
    Here's how you could get rich: Start a women's clothing store called
    "SIZE 2," in which all garments, including those that were originally
    intended to be restaurant awnings, had labels with the words "SIZE
    2." I bet you'd sell clothes like crazy. You'd probably get rich, and
    you could retire, maybe take up some philanthropic activity to benefit
    humanity. I'm thinking here of professional lawn mower racing.

    Nancy loves it! It is *so* true!

       Recently reported in the Massachusetts Bar Association Lawyers
       Journal, the following are questions actually asked of witnesses by
       attorneys during trials and, in certain cases, the responses given.


       1. "Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep,
          he doesn't know about it until the next morning?"

       2. "The youngest son, the twenty-year old, how old is he?"

       3. "Were you present when your picture was taken?"

       4. "Were you alone or by yourself?"

       5. "Was it you or your younger brother who was killed in the war?"

       6. "Did he kill you?"

       7. "How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the collision?"

       8. "You were there until the time you left, is that true?"

       9. "How many times have you committed suicide?"

      10. Q: "So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?"
          A: "Yes."
          Q: "And what were you doing at that time?"

      11. Q: "She had three children, right?"
          A: "Yes."
          Q: "How many were boys?"
          A: "None."
          Q: "Were there any girls?"

      12. Q: "You say the stairs went down to the basement?"
          A: "Yes."
          Q: "And these stairs, did they go up also?"

      13. Q: "Mr. Slatery, you went on a rather elaborate honeymoon,
              didn't you?"
          A: "I went to Europe, Sir."
          Q: "And you took your new wife?"

      14. Q: "How was your first marriage terminated?"
          A: "By death."
          Q: "And by who's death was it terminated?"

      15. Q: "Can you describe the individual?"
          A: "He was about medium height and had a beard."
          Q: "Was this a male, or a female?"

      16. Q: "Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a
              deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?"
          A: "No, this is how I dress when I go to work."

      17. Q: "Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on
              dead people?"
          A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people."

      18. Q: "All your responses must be oral, OK? What school did
              you go to?"
          A: "Oral."

      19. Q: "Do you recall the time that you examined the body?"
          A: "The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.."
          Q: "And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?"
          A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was
             doing an autopsy."

      20. Q: "You were not shot in the fracas?"
          A: "No, I was shot midway between the fracas and the navel."

      21. Q: "Are you qualified to give a urine sample?"