From: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org (jewel-digest) To: jewel-digest@smoe.org Subject: jewel-digest V15 #2 Reply-To: jewel@smoe.org Sender: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk jewel-digest Tuesday, January 4 2011 Volume 15 : Number 002 * 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: ----------------- Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... ["Larry S. Greenfield" ] Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... [ixlnicoleixl@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 18:28:18 -0800 From: "Larry S. Greenfield" Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... Yes! I'm not the oldest coot in the haystack! Thank you, Ray. On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Ray S. wrote: > omg, in 1955 I was in third grade ! > > Ray > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave McGovern" > To: "Larry S. Greenfield" ; "EDA List" < > jewel@smoe.org> > 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 21:25:23 -0500 From: "Dave McGovern" Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... I can just about imagine how our Dallas conversations will go. "So, which statin are you taking?" Or, "Do you prefer Viagra or Cialis?" And please, let's try not to eat dinner at 4:00! ;) - -----Original Message----- From: Ray S. Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 9:14 PM To: Dave McGovern ; Larry S. Greenfield ; EDA List 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-=- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 21:30:06 -0500 (EST) From: ixlnicoleixl@aol.com Subject: Re: [EDA] 2011 is SO depressing... LoL And I was feeling old going on 31! Pshhh! My Dad was born in 55 lol Thanks for making me feel vibrant and youthful! All I can say is l <3'd her music from the first bootleg I heard! In 97' I umm "borrowed" a mustang from my parents and moved to Fl. listened to Jewel all the way there! WoowhOoo! Ahh The 90's! - -----Original Message----- From: Ray S. To: Dave McGovern ; Larry S. Greenfield ; EDA List Sent: Mon, Jan 3, 2011 9:20 pm 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 #2 **************************