Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site teddy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!rdp
From: rdp@teddy.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Lightening
Message-ID: <941@teddy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 10:33:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: teddy.941
Posted: Tue Jul 16 10:33:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 10:53:12 EDT
References: <28361@lanl.ARPA>
Reply-To: rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce)
Distribution: net
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 29

In article <28361@lanl.ARPA> jp@lanl.ARPA writes:
>
>Lest anyone become confused, lightening is the phenomenon of the descent
>of the uterus into the pelvic cavity occuring toward the end of pregnancy.
>
>Lightning is a luminous electric discharge in the atmosphere.
>
>Got it now??
>
>Jim Potter jp@lanl.arpa

FLAME!

Having had, over the last 14 months, been intimately involved with the
conception, gestation, successful delivery and subsequent upbringing of
2 healthy children, and having, more recently, observed the phenomenon
of luminous electrical discharge in the atmosphere, and havin, in the article
Mr. James Potter refers to, explained my observations of a phenomenon
which only a complete fool could mistake for anything other than luminous
electric discharge in the atmosphere, you're damned right I've got it now!

The sort of completely non-informational reply and the invariable flame it
demands clutters the net with pointless nonsense. The intent of my article
was to put forth my observations for discussion regarding those observations,
NOT to have my occasional slip of fingers or spelling rules pointed out in
a totally non-productive way.

Sorry, folks, but what my discussion has to do with the above's reply
completely eludes me and everyone else here that has read said reply.