From: Jonathan Jarrard <jjarrard@f...>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 09:55:50 -0500
Subject: AAAGH!!!
Stop it! Just STOP IT!!! It's nuclear, not nucular!!!! NUCLEAR!!!! If I hear one more newscaster mispronounce this word, I'm to SCREAM... again!!!!! (Sorry. That's been building up for a while.):( > PERRYG1@aol.com wrote:
From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:29:48 -0500
Subject: Re: AAAGH!!!
Jonathan spake thusly upon matters weighty: > Stop it! Just STOP IT!!! It's nuclear, not nucular!!!! NUCLEAR!!!! If > I hear one more newscaster mispronounce this word, I'm to SCREAM. . . Calm.... easy big fellah..... don't pop an aneurism..... It's easier just to say nukes anyway....
From: Thomas Anderson <thomas.anderson@u...>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:57:50 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: AAAGH!!!
> On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Thomas Barclay wrote: > Jonathan spake thusly upon matters weighty: If > > I hear one more newscaster mispronounce this word, I'm to SCREAM. . . > > again!!!!! nah - "atomic weapons" is much better. it's got a real 1950s golden-age ring to it. plus you get to do a gurney halleck and shout "ATOMICS!" when you use them, which has to be a winning advantage. Tom
From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:09:10 -0500
Subject: Re: AAAGH!!!
Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty: > > Calm .... easy big fellah..... don't pop an aneurism..... when > you use them, which has to be a winning advantage. As long as you don't follow it up with your rendition of "Bitter Dregs"..... /************************************************
From: Mark A. Siefert <cthulhu@c...>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:12:50 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: AAAGH!!!
> On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Thomas Anderson wrote: > nah - "atomic weapons" is much better. it's got a real 1950s when > you use them, which has to be a winning advantage. Ah, but the atomics in Dune weren't Nuclear weapons, they were atomics. Hey, wait a minute! Later,