> >the
> >implicit claim being that the interlocuter was not being clear.
>
> Continued incomprehensibility is inexcusable.
>
> I do not have this complaint with you....
>
> Of course, somewhere, in the realm of the usable, is where the
> understandable tends to dwell, and clothes actually take on the form of
> matter, and are not merely apperceptions of non-nakedness....
The former is your interpretation of the latter.
>
> *****************
> Wade T. Smith
> morbius@channel1.com | "There ain't nothin' you
> wade_smith@harvard.edu | shouldn't do to a god."
> ******* http://www.channel1.com/users/morbius/ *******