Perhaps some of you wine scholars and internet posters might benefit from
actually reading what copyright is and what is protected. I think this
virtually difinitive of my opinion that our posts here are NOT protected.
Again, I would contend ours are more of conversations on a bulliten board vs
a published literary article. There might be a few posts that rise to that
level, but not in this group. IMHO.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp

http://www.washburn.edu/copyright/glossary/

My post is in no way in support of the other sites....but I don't think most
have done anything illegal. Any that change the names as Mark has
stated...that is different as in that case it could be plagiarism

Richard Neidich wrote:
> Perhaps some of you wine scholars and internet posters might benefit from
> actually reading what copyright is and what is protected. I think this
> virtually difinitive of my opinion that our posts here are NOT protected.
> Again, I would contend ours are more of conversations on a bulliten board vs
> a published literary article. There might be a few posts that rise to that
> level, but not in this group. IMHO.

Copyright law will not make me dislike people that copy my messages any
less. It is not about law, it is about people misusing my content for
their get rich with no work schemes. Let me pose another example to
you since you did not jump on the idea of someone editing your
contributions to say something different. If I google your user name
to see what other groups you might be contributing to and find that
you also post to alt.sex.littleboys it would certainly have an
impact on how I dealt with you in the future. It is not about law,
it is about what is right.

"This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this
posts is copied in part or whole on another website or Usenet
group, it is not by me and without the consent of this author who does
not post on this subject in other groups. Replies to other groups and
emails will not be answered. All replies should be to my post at
alt.food.wine. For older posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet
back several years."

Bill, with all due respect, I agree with you. It does seem wrong. But I am
not sure it rises to a legal issue that can be stopped.

If a legal option is not the solution, I do think that if everyone used your
signature statement regarding usenet and that this is alt.wine.food perhaps
it would be harder for others to copy or mirror our group and take credit
for it.

Do you give everyone on AFW the permission to use your statement below?

""This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this
posts is copied in part or whole on another website or Usenet
group, it is not by me and without the consent of this author who does
not post on this subject in other groups. Replies to other groups and
emails will not be answered. All replies should be to my post at
alt.food.wine. For older posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet
back several years."


"Bill Loftin" > wrote in message
m...
> Richard Neidich wrote:
>> Perhaps some of you wine scholars and internet posters might benefit from
>> actually reading what copyright is and what is protected. I think this
>> virtually difinitive of my opinion that our posts here are NOT protected.
>> Again, I would contend ours are more of conversations on a bulliten board
>> vs a published literary article. There might be a few posts that rise to
>> that level, but not in this group. IMHO.
>
> Copyright law will not make me dislike people that copy my messages any
> less. It is not about law, it is about people misusing my content for
> their get rich with no work schemes. Let me pose another example to
> you since you did not jump on the idea of someone editing your
> contributions to say something different. If I google your user name
> to see what other groups you might be contributing to and find that
> you also post to alt.sex.littleboys it would certainly have an
> impact on how I dealt with you in the future. It is not about law,
> it is about what is right.
>
> "This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this
> posts is copied in part or whole on another website or Usenet
> group, it is not by me and without the consent of this author who does
> not post on this subject in other groups. Replies to other groups and
> emails will not be answered. All replies should be to my post at
> alt.food.wine. For older posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet
> back several years."

On Jul 26, 10:14*pm, "Richard Neidich" > wrote:
> Bill, with all due respect, I agree with you. *It does seem wrong. *But I am
> not sure it rises to a legal issue that can be stopped.
>
> If a legal option is not the solution, I do think that if everyone used your
> signature statement regarding usenet and that this is alt.wine.food perhaps
> it would be harder for others to copy or mirror our group and take credit
> for it.
>
> Do you give everyone on AFW the permission to use your statement below?
>
> ""This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this
> posts is copied in part or whole on another website or Usenet
> group, it is not by me and without the consent of this author who does
> not post on this subject in other groups. Replies to other groups and
> emails will not be answered. All replies should be to my post at
> alt.food.wine. For older posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet
> back several years."
>
> "Bill Loftin" > wrote in message
>
> m...
>
> > Richard Neidich wrote:
> >> Perhaps some of you wine scholars and internet posters might benefit from
> >> actually reading what copyright is and what is protected. *I think this
> >> virtually difinitive of my opinion that our posts here are NOT protected.
> >> Again, I would contend ours are more of conversations on a bulliten board
> >> vs a published literary article. *There might be a few posts that rise to
> >> that level, but not in this group. *IMHO.
>
> > Copyright law will not make me dislike people that copy my messages any
> > less. It is not about law, it is about people misusing my content for
> > their get rich with no work schemes. Let me pose another example to
> > you since you did not jump on the idea of someone editing your
> > contributions to say something different. If I google your user name
> > to see what other groups you might be contributing to and find that
> > you also post to alt.sex.littleboys it would certainly have an
> > impact on how I dealt with you in the future. It is not about law,
> > it is about what is right.
>
> > "This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this
> > posts is copied in part or whole on another website or Usenet
> > group, it is not by me and without the consent of this author who does
> > not post on this subject in other groups. Replies to other groups and
> > emails will not be answered. All replies should be to my post at
> > alt.food.wine. For older posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet
> > back several years."

Regardless of the copyright issue, there likely is one more thing that
could be done. Once a month a post could be made here that lists sites
that have copied, edited, posted as a guest etc previously posted
alt.food.wine posts. This would depend on the person whose post has
been re-posted in another site reporting the details to someone who
would post the list every month here. Of course Mark Lipton is
concerned with this issue and could add this to his monthly faq post.
However it might be asking too much of him to do this, as he already
has quite a bit of work for the faqs, to say nothing of university
duties. I just throw this out for discussion, and I do not have a
strong opinion on just how it should be done or if it should be done
at all.

This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this
post is copied in part or exactly on another website or Usenet group,
it is not by me and without the consent of this author who does not
post on this subject in other groups. Replies to other groups and
emails will not be answered. All replies should be to my post at
alt.food.wine. For older posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet
back several years.

"cwdjrxyz" wrote .......
>
> This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only.
> If this post is copied in part or exactly on another website
> or Usenet group, it is not by me and without the consent of
> this author who does not post on this subject in other groups.
> Replies to other groups and emails will not be answered.
> All replies should be to my post at alt.food.wine. For older
> posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet back several years.

I must to confess to having a pet peeve - and the use of this "copyright"
disclaimer in "cwdjrxyz"s post is a graphic illustration.

The above statement appeared THREE TIMES in this single post !

With the greatest respect gentlemen (and ladies?) - for goodness sake,
please edit the content of your post before sending, and SNIP!!!!!

For too long, I have remained silent (recognising that "I" am the one with
the problem!) - but, it is simply poor netiquette to include a 10-15kb
post being tasting notes of a wonderful event - with a comment like "Nice
notes, Charlie!" included at the bottom.

I no longer purchase wine which will probably outlive me - I certainly do
not want to be spending my limited remaining life scrolling through 2 or 4
or 6 identical disclaimers, because contributors are too bloody lazy to "cut
out the crap".

In two words "SNIP DAMMIT"

st.helier

On Jul 27, 12:13*am, "st.helier" > wrote:
> "cwdjrxyz" wrote .......
>
>
>
> > This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only.
> > If this post is copied in part or exactly on another website
> > or Usenet group, it is not by me and without the consent of
> > this author who does not post on this subject in other groups.
> > Replies to other groups and emails will not be answered.
> > All replies should be to my post at alt.food.wine. For older
> > posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet back several years.
>
> I must to confess to having a pet peeve *- *and the use of this "copyright"
> disclaimer in "cwdjrxyz"s post is a graphic illustration.
>
> The above statement appeared THREE TIMES in this single post !
>
> With the greatest respect gentlemen (and ladies?) - for goodness sake,
> please edit the content of your post before sending, and SNIP!!!!!
>
> For too long, I have remained silent (recognising that "I" am the one with
> the problem!) *- *but, it is simply poor netiquette to include a 10-15kb
> post being tasting notes of a wonderful event - with a comment like "Nice
> notes, Charlie!" included at the bottom.
>
> I no longer purchase wine which will probably outlive me *- *I certainly do
> not want to be spending my limited remaining life scrolling through 2 or 4
> or 6 identical disclaimers, because contributors are too bloody lazy to "cut
> out the crap".
>
> In two words "SNIP DAMMIT"
>
> st.helier

I guess it depends on what reader you are using and how it is set. I
do not see all of the long text quoted on top, but only a "show quoted
text" in blue. If I want to know what is in the thread that came
before, I just click this and it all comes up. I happen to be using
Google Groups for this post. I would guess you are using a reader that
is not set, or can not be set, to show quoted text only when you click
for it. I really do not worry about KB of a text post anymore. The
content of even a dissertation of text is trivial with what is being
used today for video for example. Streaming a video, using progressive
download, of up to about 50 MB is not uncommon these days, for
example. And it is quite possible to download uncompressed DVD movie
files that may run from about 4 - 8 GB overnight with a very high
speed DSL or cable connection these days. Ten years ago things were
very different indeed when one was lucky to have even a true 56K
dialup connection and perhaps only a very few GB of disk space on the
computer. Usenet is a relic from that era when one had to download a
selected group of Usenet posts and then read them, usually off line.
Since then it has become common to use newer formats for groups, such
as PHP BBs, that work on line and you do not download anything, except
to the usual temporary cache, which takes care of itself. I use Google
Groups because they do all of the Usenet downloading so their
interface can be used on line much like a more modern method. It is
true that they do not allow as much customized filtering as the better
Usenet readers. However, for me, I do not see the point of filtering
out the posts of some who may annoy me. That reminds me of an ostrich
sticking its head in the sand to avoid something that really is there.
I admit some groups have troll problems and mass ad attacks from time
to time, but so far these have not bothered me enough to make me want
to use an elaborate Usenet reader and fuss with elaborate filters. Of
course we are all different.

"cwdjrxyz" wrote .....
>
> I guess it depends on what reader you are using and how it is set.
> I do not see all of the long text quoted on top, but only a "show
> quoted text" in blue. If I want to know what is in the thread that
> came before, I just click this and it all comes up.
> I happen to be using Google Groups for this post. I would guess
> you are using a reader that is not set, or can not be set,
> to show quoted text only when you click for it.

Aha - thanks for the clarification (and apologies if my post sounded like
a cheap shot at you - it wasn't!)


> Usenet is a relic from that era when one had to download a
> selected group of Usenet posts and then read them, usually off line.


Yes, and perhaps I am similarly anachronistic!

I resolve to be more tolerant
I resolve to be more tolerant
I resolve to be................................

st.helier

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:58:59 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz
> wrote:

>I guess it depends on what reader you are using and how it is set. I
>do not see all of the long text quoted on top, but only a "show quoted
>text" in blue.

You could put it under the conventional sig-separator, the one I use
in my posts. That way, most newsreader will automaticaly strip it off
when quoting. Note that there is a space after the two hyphens.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

The way I read the copyright law (I'm a writer and not an attorney) is
that postings here would be assumed to be copyrighted. Perhaps not if
you simply listed wines you tried, but if your list includes your
notes, that would fall under literary (as computer programs do,
according to the law referenced in the posting).

Shaun Eli
www.BrainChampagne.com

Richard Neidich wrote:
> Perhaps some of you wine scholars and internet posters might benefit from
> actually reading what copyright is and what is protected. I think this
> virtually difinitive of my opinion that our posts here are NOT protected.
> Again, I would contend ours are more of conversations on a bulliten board vs
> a published literary article. There might be a few posts that rise to that
> level, but not in this group. IMHO.
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp
>
> http://www.washburn.edu/copyright/glossary/

Perhaps you can clarify what in those two links you feel supports your
contentions that newsgroup posts aren't protected by copyright and/or
their reproduction without attribution on websites constitues fair use?
From what I read in both those links, no support for either of your
views is offered. Here's a more germane (IMO) link for you:

http://www.benedict.com/digital/Internet/usenet.aspx

There are two key points he

1. Any work with original content in a "fixed medium" receives copyright
protection. Original in this context means anything that wasn't simply
copied from another source. Fixed medium refers to any material medium
(print, video, CD, digitized information). Both email and newsgroups
are considered fixed media.

2. Google's Groups feature is an example of implied license, since they
are reaching the same audience that the original poster tsrgeted and
they aren't (arguably) introducing the posts to a different distribution
system. There are those who feel that Google's Groups feature may not
survive a legal challenge for copyright violation, though.

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

Mark,

There is not much more to say, we simply disagree.

You make some assumptions that I do not. I do not assume email and
newsgroup postings are literary. Secondly I do not agree that they are
fixed.

Then the content I see as basically excluded "Ideas, procedures, methods,
systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as
distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration "

I make not bones about it, our board is more of a discussion thus not
literary.

That stated, perhaps the AFW FAQ's are copyright protected. I assume you
have printed those as well.

I am sorry, I simply don't see it the same way you do. Furthermore, I don't
think the courts would either if pursued. IMHO.




"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Neidich wrote:
>> Perhaps some of you wine scholars and internet posters might benefit from
>> actually reading what copyright is and what is protected. I think this
>> virtually difinitive of my opinion that our posts here are NOT protected.
>> Again, I would contend ours are more of conversations on a bulliten board
>> vs
>> a published literary article. There might be a few posts that rise to
>> that
>> level, but not in this group. IMHO.
>>
>> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp
>>
>> http://www.washburn.edu/copyright/glossary/
>
> Perhaps you can clarify what in those two links you feel supports your
> contentions that newsgroup posts aren't protected by copyright and/or
> their reproduction without attribution on websites constitues fair use?
> From what I read in both those links, no support for either of your
> views is offered. Here's a more germane (IMO) link for you:
>
> http://www.benedict.com/digital/Internet/usenet.aspx
>
> There are two key points he
>
> 1. Any work with original content in a "fixed medium" receives copyright
> protection. Original in this context means anything that wasn't simply
> copied from another source. Fixed medium refers to any material medium
> (print, video, CD, digitized information). Both email and newsgroups
> are considered fixed media.
>
> 2. Google's Groups feature is an example of implied license, since they
> are reaching the same audience that the original poster tsrgeted and
> they aren't (arguably) introducing the posts to a different distribution
> system. There are those who feel that Google's Groups feature may not
> survive a legal challenge for copyright violation, though.
>
> Mark Lipton
>
> --
> alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

Richard Neidich wrote:
> Mark,
>
> There is not much more to say, we simply disagree.

I tend to agree, Dick, but I'll take one last stab at it:

>
> You make some assumptions that I do not. I do not assume email and
> newsgroup postings are literary.

From your first link:

These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer
programs and most “compilations” may be registered as “literary works”;
maps and architectural plans may be registered as “pictorial, graphic,
and sculptural works.”

If computer programs are considered literary works, I can't see how we
can reasonably exclude someone's ramblings about wine.

(I cite the Fair Use doctrine for quoting their page, BTW ;-))

> Secondly I do not agree that they are fixed.

Again, from your first link:

The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be
communicated with the aid of a machine or device.

That line, to me, clearly indicates that digital information is to be
considered a fixed medium, and all that I've read supports that view.

>
> Then the content I see as basically excluded "Ideas, procedures, methods,
> systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as
> distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration "

That sentence, as I read it, merely makes the point that it is the
written documents that are copyrighted, not the intellectual property
that underlie them; these latter are protected by patents instead.

>
> That stated, perhaps the AFW FAQ's are copyright protected. I assume you
> have printed those as well.

Nope, but I'm really not concerned about it, despite my view that it is
protected by copyright.

>
> I am sorry, I simply don't see it the same way you do. Furthermore, I don't
> think the courts would either if pursued. IMHO.

As I said before, I think it would be difficult to claim any damages in
such cases. OTOH, "cease and desist" letters from lawyers seem to be
the usual way in which these things are handled anyway.

Anyway, I've said all that I'll say on the subject. There's a reason
(several, actually) why I'm not a lawyer, and discussions like this make
them vividly clear to me.

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

Richard,

Most of what you say would also apply to The Tonight Show, which is
clearly protected by copyright.

Being on the internet instead of in a book makes no difference as far
as copyright.

Well, I am not sure I agree with that aspect and if challenged in court you
might find the defendants attorney will use that as our forum is more of
conversational and I do not beleive that is covered.

That said, I have not practiced law in a while but I did in the last 10
years have a slander/libel case for a client and forum was the essential
aspect of our victory. The client had a john doe posting to a yahoo message
board of a public stock. The company CEO was offended, we used John Doe to
maintain confidentiality and lost on that part, but won on the overall
issue.

But, no big deal...this whole issue is a waste of time because no one here
is going to waste money on our posts that could be better spent on wine.
:-)
"Shaun Eli" > wrote in message
...
> Richard,
>
> Most of what you say would also apply to The Tonight Show, which is
> clearly protected by copyright.
>
> Being on the internet instead of in a book makes no difference as far
> as copyright.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:59:17 -0400, Richard Neidich wrote:

> Well, I am not sure I agree with that aspect and if challenged in court
> you might find the defendants attorney will use that as our forum is
> more of conversational and I do not beleive that is covered.

If we have a bull session talking about fine wines, and it is tape
recorded, is that tape fair game to broadcast at a later date without the
permissions of the participants?

Does it matter if the participants do (or do not include) Parker,
Mondavi, and The French Chef? Does it matter if they speak in iambic
pentameter or chant like a Gregorian choir?

Jose

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:50:32 +0200, Mike Tommasi wrote:

> If all the post right here were done in verse
> No thieves would ever steal from us again
But only honest folk would come peruse
the writings from our electronic pen.

So pop a cork and swirl the glass tonight
and tell the world what grape is your delight...

On Jul 29, 11:17*am, Mike Tommasi > wrote:
> Jose wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:50:32 +0200, Mike Tommasi wrote:
>
> >> If all the post right here were done in verse
> >> No thieves would ever steal from us again
> > But only honest folk would come peruse
> > the writings from *our electronic pen.
>
> Who can fill in eight lines here to make a proper english sonnet? We
> already have the a-b-a-b / g-g lines, we are missing c-d-c-d / e-f-e-f ....
>
> > So pop a cork and swirl the glass tonight
> > and tell the world what grape is your delight...
>
> --
> Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
> email linkhttp://www.tommasi.org/mymail

If one is a poor poet, perhaps two lines will do.

Last night I drank some Mirabelle
Today I do not feel too swell

Something close to that comes from some author that I can not recall.
Apparently the plum eau de vie Mirabelle can give you a nice hangover
if you drink much of it, but perhaps we can not blame the plums
because it is often 40 - 45 percent alcohol.

Hi
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:50:48 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz
> wrote:

>Something close to that comes from some author that I can not recall.
>Apparently the plum eau de vie Mirabelle can give you a nice hangover
>if you drink much of it, but perhaps we can not blame the plums
>because it is often 40 - 45 percent alcohol.

Hah!! The one we finished tonight we estimated at between 60 and 55%.

I'm not very good with Classic rhyming couplets, but - in view of the
direction in which your thoughts are going perhaps the example I first
learnt of something or other will suffice. (Probably an elegiac
couplet).

"Down in a deep dark ditch sat an old cow chewing a beanstalk
Out of her mouth came forth, yesterdays dinner and tea."

All I'm any good at is writing scurrilous limericks. Here's one that
came to me in the last few seconds.

There once was a lawyer named Dick,
whose mind was remarkably sick
he'd argue all night
over who had the right
to copy his writings, the silly fellow.

Which took as inspiration one of my favourites

"There was an old man of Dundee
who was stung in the arm by a wasp
when they asked "Does it hurt?"
he said "No it doesn't"
Thank heavens it was't a hornet.
--
All the best
Fatty from Forges

On Jul 29, 4:01*pm, IanH > wrote:

> All I'm any good at is writing scurrilous limericks. Here's one that
> came to me in the last few seconds.

Then there are the Cape Cod limericks.

There was an old maid from Cape Cod,
Who thought all children came from God.
It was Roger almighty who gave her some hot toddy,
And now she's a mother, by God.

I likely will hear the groans all the way from France when you read
the above. Back to drinks, I finally found the elusive Houx eau de vie
from France and likely will try some over the winter holidays. If
French holly is anything like US holly, I am glad I did not have to
pick the berries because of the thorn-like tips of the holly leaves.
Back to wine, I did find a shop in Holland that actually sells some
Dutch wine. They will even ship it, but the shipping charges would
greatly exceed the price of the wine. Of course some wine is made in
most countries even if grapes will not grow and imported grape
concentrate must be used. However this sort of wine seldom makes it
outside the country.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:01:34 +0200, IanH > wrote:


> There once was a lawyer named Dick,
> whose mind was remarkably sick
> he'd argue all night
> over who had the right
> to copy his writings, the silly fellow.



Shades of the old fag of Khartoum!

--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:50:32 +0200, Mike Tommasi >
wrote:

> Jose wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:59:17 -0400, Richard Neidich wrote:
> >
> >> Well, I am not sure I agree with that aspect and if challenged in court
> >> you might find the defendants attorney will use that as our forum is
> >> more of conversational and I do not beleive that is covered.
> >
> > If we have a bull session talking about fine wines, and it is tape
> > recorded, is that tape fair game to broadcast at a later date without the
> > permissions of the participants?
> >
> > Does it matter if the participants do (or do not include) Parker,
> > Mondavi, and The French Chef? Does it matter if they speak in iambic
> > pentameter or chant like a Gregorian choir?
> >
> > Jose
>
> OK, iambic pentameter only from now, let's go:
>
> If all the post right here were done in verse
> No thieves would ever steal from us again


And since the thread has moved from iambic pentameter to limericks:

There once was a Scot named McAmeter
With a tool of prodigious diameter.
It was not the size
That cause such surprise;
T'was his rhythm -- iambic pentameter.

--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Ken Blake > wrote:

> There once was a Scot named McAmeter
> With a tool of prodigious diameter.
> It was not the size
> That cause such surprise;
> T'was his rhythm -- iambic pentameter.

There once was a gaucho named Bruno,
Who said: "There is one thing I do know:
A woman is fine,
And sheep is divine,
But a lama is numero uno!"

M.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:10:00 -0700, Ken Blake
> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:01:34 +0200, IanH > wrote:
>
>
>> There once was a lawyer named Dick,
>> whose mind was remarkably sick
>> he'd argue all night
>> over who had the right
>> to copy his writings, the silly fellow.
>
>
>
>Shades of the old fag of Khartoum!

I wondered where that couplet came from.,... Quite right. It's called
poetic inspiration. Shakespeare did it all the time.

Ah me. Unmasked again!


--
All the best
Fatty from Forges

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:29:07 +0200, IanH > wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:10:00 -0700, Ken Blake
> > wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:01:34 +0200, IanH > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> There once was a lawyer named Dick,
> >> whose mind was remarkably sick
> >> he'd argue all night
> >> over who had the right
> >> to copy his writings, the silly fellow.
> >
> >
> >
> >Shades of the old fag of Khartoum!
>
> I wondered where that couplet came from.,... Quite right. It's called
> poetic inspiration. Shakespeare did it all the time.
>
> Ah me. Unmasked again!


LOL! You just happened to quote one of my favorite limericks.

--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup