| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1437.1 | Or did I miss a new trick wording? | VMSNET::L_GULICK | Lew Gulick | Thu Apr 17 1997 03:46 | 7 |
|
-one-
As it has always been. Unless you walk fast, overtook them going in
the same direction, and used "met" to mean "was introduced to."
|
| 1437.2 | | 4446::OSMAN | Eric Osman, dtn 226-7122 | Thu Apr 17 1997 18:16 | 5 |
|
I don't see why "met" needs to mean "was introduced to" in order for
the walking-fast case to apply.
/Eric
|
| 1437.3 | | BUSY::SLAB | Erotic Nightmares | Thu Apr 17 1997 19:13 | 4 |
|
Yeah, you could have been walking slowly and they could have caught
up to you.
|
| 1437.4 | quite true | VMSNET::L_GULICK | Lew Gulick | Thu Apr 17 1997 19:14 | 5 |
|
True, and the point is that the question is actually somewhat
ambiguous. Fuzzy language instead of fuzzy logic.
Lew
|
| 1437.5 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Apr 17 1997 20:38 | 7 |
|
Not to mention that the original wasn't "how many people" - it
was "how many". El grande difference.
"Kits, cats, sacks, and wives - how many were going to St. Ives?"
|
| 1437.6 | | RHETT::MOORE | | Thu Apr 17 1997 22:03 | 3 |
| re .5 --
Who says cats aren't people? :)
|
| 1437.7 | | BUSY::SLAB | FUBAR | Thu Apr 17 1997 22:07 | 3 |
|
A show of hands will suffice, I assume?
|