From: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org (jewel-digest) To: jewel-digest@smoe.org Subject: jewel-digest V15 #1 Reply-To: jewel@smoe.org Sender: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk jewel-digest Monday, January 3 2011 Volume 15 : Number 001 * If you ever wish to unsubscribe from this digest, send an email to * jewel-digest-request@smoe.org with ONLY the word * unsubscribe in the BODY of the email * . * For the latest news on what Jewel is up to, go to * the OFFICIAL Jewel web site at http://www.jeweljk.com * and click on "calendar" * . * PLEASE :) when you reply to this digest to send a post TO the list, * change the subject to reflect what your post is about. A subject * of Re: jewel-digest V12 #___ gives fellow list readers * no clue as to what your message is about. Today's Subjects: ----------------- [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... [Mike Connell ] Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... [W1GGY2@aol.com] Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... ["Larry S. Greenfield" ] Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... [ixlnicoleixl@aol.com] Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... ["Larry S. Greenfield" ] Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... ["Ray S." ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:36:32 -0500 From: Mike Connell Subject: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... Driving home today listening to a "2KPop" station on XMRadio, I realized a depressing aspect of this being 2011 and the start of a new decade. It means that the music of the 1990s, the decade that the person this list is named for started her career that made us all fans, is now the music of TWO decades ago. Yikes! Also compressing the depression of 2011 is the fact that it now being 2011 makes me closer to being 100 years old than it does 10 years old. Woe is me. - -M :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 18:10:44 EST From: W1GGY2@aol.com Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... Well, Mike, thanks for making us all feel old and depressed! I guess misery really does love company! Let's focus on the positive - we must be one of the longest running internet fan lists out there. And...uh...well, that's all I got. Going back to bed for the rest of the year... Amy :-) In a message dated 1/3/2011 5:39:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ducksoup@quackquack.net writes: Driving home today listening to a "2KPop" station on XMRadio, I realized a depressing aspect of this being 2011 and the start of a new decade. It means that the music of the 1990s, the decade that the person this list is named for started her career that made us all fans, is now the music of TWO decades ago. Yikes! Also compressing the depression of 2011 is the fact that it now being 2011 makes me closer to being 100 years old than it does 10 years old. Woe is me. - -M :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:43:39 -0800 From: "Larry S. Greenfield" Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... Oh, geej. Geezers and geezettes who fit Mike's description apparently are the only ones here expected to respond. I've got that nailed. Let's look at the positive: we're above ground. No Chilean mine disasters have befallen us. Who's going to Dallas in April for EDA III (<-- allegedly)?? - -=-Larry-=- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 19:09:34 -0500 From: "Dave McGovern" Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... Nestled amongst the depression caused by ever-ticking clocks, is a good old-fashioned word problem. Shall we dust off the high school algebra brain cells and give this one a try? And yball thought youbd escaped these forever. If 2011 is the year that Mike is closer to being 100 than to being 10, then 2010 must have been the halfway point between 10 and 100. In what year was Mike born? Letbs call that year bXb X + 10 = Mike at 10 years old X + 100 = Mike at 100 years old 2010 = (X+10) + (X+100)/2 Therebs your formula. Solve for X Larry, does this mean Ibm more of a geezer, or a dork? Hint: Ibm also on the downhill side on the march to 100. But Ibll be in Dallas, for sure. MAC - -----Original Message----- From: Larry S. Greenfield Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 6:43 PM To: W1GGY2@aol.com Cc: ducksoup@quackquack.net ; jewel@smoe.org Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... Oh, geej. Geezers and geezettes who fit Mike's description apparently are the only ones here expected to respond. I've got that nailed. Let's look at the positive: we're above ground. No Chilean mine disasters have befallen us. Who's going to Dallas in April for EDA III (<-- allegedly)?? - -=-Larry-=- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 19:29:26 -0500 (EST) From: ixlnicoleixl@aol.com Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... Well it could be worse; we all could be either dead or not around for that wonderful time period LOL! Ahh the 90's what a wonderful decade! - -=) Depression would be not having that great sound to get us through the past 2!!! =) Happy New Year Everyone! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 16:45:03 -0800 From: "Larry S. Greenfield" Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... Mac, you and I are thinking alike. The first thought I had upon seeing Mike's email was to calculate his minimum age based on his own criteria. However, having forgotten all the math I learned in high school (and before), I was going by interpolation only, thinking outside the ever-diminishing box. By my calculations, Mike is at least 55 (or will be during the first half of this year). My reasoning: If Mike is 55, then he is 45 years from having been ten and 45 years from hitting 100. ( "Hitting 100 -- I'd Tap That" <-- a good title for a Jewel song?) 55 would thus be an "equivalent" number; that is, he would be just as close to age 10 as age 100, but not "closer." Thus the first age that puts him over the hill is 56. If he is 55.5, he would be closer to 100 than to 10, but I was assuming that Mike was using whole numbers for his conclusion. It is also possible that Mike was assuming anything "past" his 55th birthday made him "older" than 55 and thus "closer" to 100, so it could be that he is "55+." How that relates to the changing of the year I do not know, so I am guessing that Mike will be 56 before half the year is out, if he is not 56 already. This was a hard one, as the last time I saw Mike, which was in 1998, if I recall correctly (and I wouldn't count on that), Mike didn't strike me as being any older than 15. So, what is X, if Mike is 56 (and would Exene care?)? - -=-Larry-=- On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Dave McGovern wrote: > Nestled amongst the depression caused by ever-ticking clocks, is a good > old-fashioned word problem. Shall we dust off the high school algebra brain > cells and give this one a try? And yall thought youd escaped these > forever. > If 2011 is the year that Mike is closer to being 100 than to being 10, then > 2010 must have been the halfway point between 10 and 100. In what year was > Mike born? Lets call that year X > X + 10 = Mike at 10 years old > X + 100 = Mike at 100 years old > 2010 = (X+10) + (X+100)/2 > Theres your formula. Solve for X > Larry, does this mean Im more of a geezer, or a dork? Hint: Im also on the > downhill side on the march to 100. > But Ill be in Dallas, for sure. > MAC > > -----Original Message----- From: Larry S. Greenfield > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 6:43 PM > To: W1GGY2@aol.com > Cc: ducksoup@quackquack.net ; jewel@smoe.org > Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... > > Oh, geej. Geezers and geezettes who fit Mike's description apparently > are the only ones here expected to respond. > I've got that nailed. > Let's look at the positive: we're above ground. No Chilean mine > disasters have befallen us. > Who's going to Dallas in April for EDA III (<-- allegedly)?? > -=-Larry-=- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 16:49:40 -0800 From: "Larry S. Greenfield" Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... p.s. That would make Mike a 1955 baby. This reminds me of the EDA list in 1998 (if I recall correctly, and I wouldn't count on that). On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Larry S. Greenfield wrote: > Mac, you and I are thinking alike. > > The first thought I had upon seeing Mike's email was to calculate his > minimum age based on his own criteria. > However, having forgotten all the math I learned in high school (and > before), I was going by interpolation only, thinking outside the > ever-diminishing box. > > By my calculations, Mike is at least 55 (or will be during the first > half of this year). > My reasoning: If Mike is 55, then he is 45 years from having been ten > and 45 years from hitting 100. ( "Hitting 100 -- I'd Tap That" <-- a > good title for a Jewel song?) > 55 would thus be an "equivalent" number; that is, he would be just as > close to age 10 as age 100, but not "closer." > > Thus the first age that puts him over the hill is 56. If he is 55.5, > he would be closer to 100 than to 10, but I was assuming that Mike was > using whole numbers for his conclusion. It is also possible that Mike > was assuming anything "past" his 55th birthday made him "older" than > 55 and thus "closer" to 100, so it could be that he is "55+." How > that relates to the changing of the year I do not know, so I am > guessing that Mike will be 56 before half the year is out, if he is > not 56 already. > > This was a hard one, as the last time I saw Mike, which was in 1998, > if I recall correctly (and I wouldn't count on that), Mike didn't > strike me as being any older than 15. > > So, what is X, if Mike is 56 (and would Exene care?)? > > -=-Larry-=- > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Dave McGovern wrote: >> Nestled amongst the depression caused by ever-ticking clocks, is a good >> old-fashioned word problem. Shall we dust off the high school algebra brain >> cells and give this one a try? And y all thought you d escaped these >> forever. >> If 2011 is the year that Mike is closer to being 100 than to being 10, then >> 2010 must have been the halfway point between 10 and 100. In what year was >> Mike born? Let s call that year X >> X + 10 = Mike at 10 years old >> X + 100 = Mike at 100 years old >> 2010 = (X+10) + (X+100)/2 >> There s your formula. Solve for X >> Larry, does this mean I m more of a geezer, or a dork? Hint: I m also on the >> downhill side on the march to 100. >> But I ll be in Dallas, for sure. >> MAC >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Larry S. Greenfield >> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 6:43 PM >> To: W1GGY2@aol.com >> Cc: ducksoup@quackquack.net ; jewel@smoe.org >> Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... >> >> Oh, geej. Geezers and geezettes who fit Mike's description apparently >> are the only ones here expected to respond. >> I've got that nailed. >> Let's look at the positive: we're above ground. No Chilean mine >> disasters have befallen us. >> Who's going to Dallas in April for EDA III (<-- allegedly)?? >> -=-Larry-=- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 16:51:31 -0800 From: "Larry S. Greenfield" Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... p.p.s. I think it was 2000 that I last saw Mike, in Ithaca, NY. Maybe. On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Larry S. Greenfield wrote: > p.s. That would make Mike a 1955 baby. > > This reminds me of the EDA list in 1998 (if I recall correctly, and I > wouldn't count on that). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 16:56:37 -0800 From: "Larry S. Greenfield" Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... p.p.p.s.: I get 1960 when I do the algebra in your formula, so I'm sticking with my geezer way of calculating. If I'm going to be wrong, then it's my own damn fault. On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Larry S. Greenfield wrote: > p.p.s. I think it was 2000 that I last saw Mike, in Ithaca, NY. > > Maybe. > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Larry S. Greenfield > wrote: >> p.s. That would make Mike a 1955 baby. >> >> This reminds me of the EDA list in 1998 (if I recall correctly, and I >> wouldn't count on that). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 16:59:24 -0800 From: "Larry S. Greenfield" Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... p.p.p.s. (so shoot me): I redid the math and get 1955!! Yay math! On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Larry S. Greenfield wrote: > p.p.p.s.: I get 1960 when I do the algebra in your formula, so I'm > sticking with my geezer way of calculating. If I'm going to be wrong, > then it's my own damn fault. > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Larry S. Greenfield > wrote: >> p.p.s. I think it was 2000 that I last saw Mike, in Ithaca, NY. >> >> Maybe. >> >> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Larry S. Greenfield >> wrote: >>> p.s. That would make Mike a 1955 baby. >>> >>> This reminds me of the EDA list in 1998 (if I recall correctly, and I >>> wouldn't count on that). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 20:04:14 -0500 From: "Dave McGovern" Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... 1955 is the year I came up with too. But I'm sure none of us could have been born that long ago. Would that mean, we like Ike? And we'd know what Duck and Cover refers to? We'll have to leave it at that. I think it's Howdy Doody time. Or maybe time for the Mickey Mouse Club? Can't miss Annette's introduction. ;) MAC - -----Original Message----- From: Larry S. Greenfield Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 7:49 PM To: Dave McGovern Cc: EDA List ; Mike Connell ; Amy Llama Neufeld Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... p.s. That would make Mike a 1955 baby. This reminds me of the EDA list in 1998 (if I recall correctly, and I wouldn't count on that). On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Larry S. Greenfield wrote: > Mac, you and I are thinking alike. > > The first thought I had upon seeing Mike's email was to calculate his > minimum age based on his own criteria. > However, having forgotten all the math I learned in high school (and > before), I was going by interpolation only, thinking outside the > ever-diminishing box. > > By my calculations, Mike is at least 55 (or will be during the first > half of this year). > My reasoning: If Mike is 55, then he is 45 years from having been ten > and 45 years from hitting 100. ( "Hitting 100 -- I'd Tap That" <-- a > good title for a Jewel song?) > 55 would thus be an "equivalent" number; that is, he would be just as > close to age 10 as age 100, but not "closer." > > Thus the first age that puts him over the hill is 56. If he is 55.5, > he would be closer to 100 than to 10, but I was assuming that Mike was > using whole numbers for his conclusion. It is also possible that Mike > was assuming anything "past" his 55th birthday made him "older" than > 55 and thus "closer" to 100, so it could be that he is "55+." How > that relates to the changing of the year I do not know, so I am > guessing that Mike will be 56 before half the year is out, if he is > not 56 already. > > This was a hard one, as the last time I saw Mike, which was in 1998, > if I recall correctly (and I wouldn't count on that), Mike didn't > strike me as being any older than 15. > > So, what is X, if Mike is 56 (and would Exene care?)? > > -=-Larry-=- > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Dave McGovern wrote: >> Nestled amongst the depression caused by ever-ticking clocks, is a good >> old-fashioned word problem. Shall we dust off the high school algebra >> brain >> cells and give this one a try? And y all thought you d escaped these >> forever. >> If 2011 is the year that Mike is closer to being 100 than to being 10, >> then >> 2010 must have been the halfway point between 10 and 100. In what year >> was >> Mike born? Let s call that year X >> X + 10 = Mike at 10 years old >> X + 100 = Mike at 100 years old >> 2010 = (X+10) + (X+100)/2 >> There s your formula. Solve for X >> Larry, does this mean I m more of a geezer, or a dork? Hint: I m also on >> the >> downhill side on the march to 100. >> But I ll be in Dallas, for sure. >> MAC >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Larry S. Greenfield >> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 6:43 PM >> To: W1GGY2@aol.com >> Cc: ducksoup@quackquack.net ; jewel@smoe.org >> Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... >> >> Oh, geej. Geezers and geezettes who fit Mike's description apparently >> are the only ones here expected to respond. >> I've got that nailed. >> Let's look at the positive: we're above ground. No Chilean mine >> disasters have befallen us. >> Who's going to Dallas in April for EDA III (<-- allegedly)?? >> -=-Larry-=- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 21:14:19 -0500 From: "Ray S." Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... omg, in 1955 I was in third grade ! Ray - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave McGovern" To: "Larry S. Greenfield" ; "EDA List" Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 8:04 PM Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... > 1955 is the year I came up with too. But I'm sure none of us could have > been born that long ago. Would that mean, we like Ike? And we'd know what > Duck and Cover refers to? We'll have to leave it at that. I think it's > Howdy Doody time. Or maybe time for the Mickey Mouse Club? Can't miss > Annette's introduction. ;) > > MAC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry S. Greenfield > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 7:49 PM > To: Dave McGovern > Cc: EDA List ; Mike Connell ; Amy Llama Neufeld > Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... > > p.s. That would make Mike a 1955 baby. > > This reminds me of the EDA list in 1998 (if I recall correctly, and I > wouldn't count on that). > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Larry S. Greenfield > wrote: >> Mac, you and I are thinking alike. >> >> The first thought I had upon seeing Mike's email was to calculate his >> minimum age based on his own criteria. >> However, having forgotten all the math I learned in high school (and >> before), I was going by interpolation only, thinking outside the >> ever-diminishing box. >> >> By my calculations, Mike is at least 55 (or will be during the first >> half of this year). >> My reasoning: If Mike is 55, then he is 45 years from having been ten >> and 45 years from hitting 100. ( "Hitting 100 -- I'd Tap That" <-- a >> good title for a Jewel song?) >> 55 would thus be an "equivalent" number; that is, he would be just as >> close to age 10 as age 100, but not "closer." >> >> Thus the first age that puts him over the hill is 56. If he is 55.5, >> he would be closer to 100 than to 10, but I was assuming that Mike was >> using whole numbers for his conclusion. It is also possible that Mike >> was assuming anything "past" his 55th birthday made him "older" than >> 55 and thus "closer" to 100, so it could be that he is "55+." How >> that relates to the changing of the year I do not know, so I am >> guessing that Mike will be 56 before half the year is out, if he is >> not 56 already. >> >> This was a hard one, as the last time I saw Mike, which was in 1998, >> if I recall correctly (and I wouldn't count on that), Mike didn't >> strike me as being any older than 15. >> >> So, what is X, if Mike is 56 (and would Exene care?)? >> >> -=-Larry-=- >> >> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Dave McGovern wrote: >>> Nestled amongst the depression caused by ever-ticking clocks, is a good >>> old-fashioned word problem. Shall we dust off the high school algebra >>> brain >>> cells and give this one a try? And y all thought you d escaped these >>> forever. >>> If 2011 is the year that Mike is closer to being 100 than to being 10, >>> then >>> 2010 must have been the halfway point between 10 and 100. In what year >>> was >>> Mike born? Let s call that year X >>> X + 10 = Mike at 10 years old >>> X + 100 = Mike at 100 years old >>> 2010 = (X+10) + (X+100)/2 >>> There s your formula. Solve for X >>> Larry, does this mean I m more of a geezer, or a dork? Hint: I m also on >>> the >>> downhill side on the march to 100. >>> But I ll be in Dallas, for sure. >>> MAC >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Larry S. Greenfield >>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 6:43 PM >>> To: W1GGY2@aol.com >>> Cc: ducksoup@quackquack.net ; jewel@smoe.org >>> Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... >>> >>> Oh, geej. Geezers and geezettes who fit Mike's description apparently >>> are the only ones here expected to respond. >>> I've got that nailed. >>> Let's look at the positive: we're above ground. No Chilean mine >>> disasters have befallen us. >>> Who's going to Dallas in April for EDA III (<-- allegedly)?? >>> -=-Larry-=- ------------------------------ End of jewel-digest V15 #1 **************************