Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Return of the Woodchuck... (sorry)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:41:38 +0000
When the woodchuck think was still at it's height, I sent this to the
internet oracle for aid in our distress....

Thought you might like to see this, as the woodchuck is the arch-nemesis of
the internet oracle as well.....
It was obviously a tough question, but after a couple of weeks of waiting,
it finally arrived this morn.

|The Internet Oracle has pondered your question deeply.
|Your question was:
|
|> Oh Oracle most wise...
|> He who could eradicate all the bugs from every microsoft product ever
|> written without even breaking a sweat, I beseach thee.....
|>
|> Recently, the shadowrn mailing list has become infested with woodchucks.
|> In addition to the offending question, they have begun to discuss
|> cyber-enhanced woodchucks and magically active ones.....
|>
|> For example:
|>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Begin sordid extract
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
|>
|> <* Offending question snipped* >
|>
|> > >As much wood as a woodchuck would chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood...
|> > >
|> > >if that makes any sense at all... which is very doubtful....
|> > >
|> > >Crucible
|> >
|> > So why exactly can't a woodchuck chuck wood?
|> >
|> > Peace and Long Life,
|> >
|> > Scott
|> >
|>
|> Cause a woodchucks job of chucking wood is not a job that a wood chuck
|> would do because a woodchuck doesnt know how much wood a woodchuck could
|> chuck therefore the whole union is in disarray over work standards for
|> the average woodchuck... I mean whose to say that one woodchuck isnt a
|> hard worker cause another woodchuck can chuck more wood that the former
|> woodchuck... then we get to beasts such as the "animal formerly known as
|> woodchuck"... All he wants to do is sing about female woodchucks...
|>
|> So maybe the procreation of the woodchuck isnt going to well cause all
|> the men are out trying to find out how much wood a woodchuck can chuck if
|> a woodchuck could chuck wood... and the females are moving away
|> unfulfilled... therefore until we find a method of giving the woodchucks
|> throwing ability the whole species shall die cause none of them are out
|> having sex.. instead trying to formulate a plan to chuck the most wood....
|>
|>
|> Join the save the Woodchuck society...
|> Can someone please come up with a method by which a woodchuck can chuck
|> wood and save the entire populace....
|>
|>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
End Sordid Extract
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
|>
|> My question is this....
|> What is the best Woodchuckicide that is also harmless to mailing list
|> software, and where can I get some?
|>
|
|And in response, thus spake the Oracle:
|
|} The best woodchuckicide is actually an all natural compound called
|} CHUCK-NO-MORE. CHUCK-NO-MORE is an ACME product containing 94%
|} tazmanian-devil saliva, and 35% peppe-le-pu scent. CHUCK-NO-MORE is
|} guaranteed to drive out all woodchucks (and anything else for that
|} matter). Being all natural, it is completely safe for all your "
|} woodchuck in the software" problems. CHUCK-NO-MORE can be found at your
|} local ACME distributer.
|


--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| |
|Andrew Halliwell | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
|Principal subjects in:- | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! >*SULK*<|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Return of the Woodchuck... (sorry), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.