Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV!usenet@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV
From: usenet@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9003061631.AA15669@lll-winken.llnl.gov>
Date: 7 Mar 90 00:31:28 GMT
Sender: daemon@eddie.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: Love-Hounds Anonymous
Lines: 34
Approved: nessus@eddie.mit.edu

To: ames!rec-music-gaffa
Path: lll-winken!das!ed
From: ed@das.llnl.gov (Edward Suranyi)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Twisted syllogisms (was Re: twisted sound bites from Shakespeare)
Message-ID: <51227@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 7 Mar 90 00:31:26 GMT
References: <1209168@mac.Dartmouth.EDU>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: ed@das.UUCP (Edward Suranyi)
Organization: Dept. of Applied Science, UC Davis at LLNL
Lines: 21


In article <1209168@mac.Dartmouth.EDU> Julian.West@MAC.DARTMOUTH.EDU writes:

>Ed wrote:
>
>> When _HoL_ came out, _Rolling Stone_ wasn't giving stars in its 
>> reviews.  So it's hard to tell what they really thought.  
>
>You're kidding, right? You come from the school of ironic
>false syllogisms, right?
>
>Julian

No.  I don't have this review any more, but I remember that when I read it
I *couldn't* tell what they really thought.  It was really very hazily
written.  If they had used stars, I could at least have learned if the
reviewer thought it was good or bad.  From his words I could only tell
that he neither loved nor loathed it.

Ed
ed@das.llnl.gov