705. Anonymous (host81-105-176-82.not-set-yet.ntli.net) – 10 Sep 2003 10:03:35 [ FLAMING TEXT ]

?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿? SEXI LIL ESSEX BABE HERE ¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?

704. Anonymous (host81-105-176-82.not-set-yet.ntli.net) – 10 Sep 2003 10:02:20 [ FLAMING TEXT ]

wats up peeps

703. Anonymous (host81-105-176-82.not-set-yet.ntli.net) – 10 Sep 2003 10:01:35 [ FLAMING TEXT ]

yo yo in a bit yo

702. Tuuur (supercow.kabel.utwente.nl) – 09 Sep 2003 20:33:35 [ More on Tom 1 (2?) ]

I use the three vowels just because my real nickname, Tuur, is always taken when I have to come up with a new loginname.

701. Tom 7 (gs82.sp.cs.cmu.edu) – 09 Sep 2003 13:01:03 [ More on Tom 1 (2?) ]

Yeah, three vowels in a row is pretty sweet.

I am, I think, the only "Tom Murphy VII" there is, though.

700. Tuuur (to-kamst.gw.utwente.nl) – 09 Sep 2003 04:15:59 [ More on Tom 1 (2?) ]

Got to be difficult to do research with so many Thomas Murphies in the archives.
Don't know how it feels to share your name with other people, I am the only person on earth with my first name - last name combination I think. Or at least in my country...

699. Anonymous (dtnt-063.molalla.net) – 08 Sep 2003 21:12:32 [ Free Plexiglass! ]

is there anyone serious out there about about this plexiglass or not? I would like to buy a few sheet if possible. Please email me at jentylove@saw.net if you have a few to sell. Thank you.
Jennifer

698. Tom 7 (h-66-167-9-120.phlapafg.covad.net) – 08 Sep 2003 10:11:28 [ More on Tom 1 (2?) ]

Oops, ok, I fixed it.

697. Tuuur (to-kamst.gw.utwente.nl) – 08 Sep 2003 04:13:55 [ More on Tom 1 (2?) ]

Hey, both names link to the same document in the last paragraph of your post...

696. Anonymous (wsu112-127.rurallink.net) – 07 Sep 2003 22:26:30 [ FLAMING TEXT ]

blondie here!!!!

695. cdinwood (pool-151-201-42-227.pitt.east.verizon.net) – 07 Sep 2003 12:12:51 [ Found: Maniac Mansion ]

. . . I thought all Edisons had names which rhymed with Ed.

694. Neal (qwest165-dsl5.cybermesa.com) – 07 Sep 2003 12:00:22 [ September ]

Listen up you bunch of ill-breed extremists: Look, you guys just don't fucking get it. When medium guy is on the attack he has an innate advantate over all other attackers (just like fat guy or skinny guy). And I ask you this: Whom amongst fat guy, skinny guy and medium guy can fend off all these attacks. There is but one: medium guy. Medium guy is fast enough to constrict the movement of skinny guy by positioning himself on the inner radius. He can then deal damage to skinny guy in a way that a fellow skinny guy cannot. A similar argument shows that medium guy is also superior to fat guy. Furthermore, medium guy is the only guy with the versatility to effectively combat another medium guy.

The proper mix: fat guy, fat guy, medium guy, skinny guy.

693. Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta (adsl-67-127-228-204.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net) – 06 Sep 2003 20:10:03 [ KILLER JAPANESE SEIZURE ROBOTS ]

The site is not a joke. Can't any of you see what it is? Rabbits, clowns? Please. Listen to me, go to your kitchen or to the store and buy green tinted cellophane wrap...you know, for kids. Tear off a sheet and hold it up to your moniter. Now you little fools, look at your damn seizure robots... look at what YOU are helping to propagate! STOP NOW BEFORE THE METER HITS 3.5 !!!!!!!

692. Tom 7 (h-66-167-9-120.phlapafg.covad.net) – 06 Sep 2003 19:49:33 [ A New Kind of Logic ]

Yeah, if I had proof terms it would probably amount to the same thing.

691. Tom 7 (h-66-167-9-120.phlapafg.covad.net) – 06 Sep 2003 19:44:21 [ September ]

Ok Bevi!

690. Anonymous (yale128036076025.student.yale.edu) – 06 Sep 2003 11:43:19 [ A New Kind of Logic ]

Isn't that the same thing as strong normalization? Existence of a normal proof for any provable proposition = existence of a normal term for any well-typed term. This typically also gives you consistancy, since you can just add _|_ to your language and show that, since it has no normal form, and since it has no introduction rule, it must also not have a normal proof (which means it can't have a proof at all); at least that's how Gentzen did it, I hear.

Jeff

689. Anonymous (1cust254.tnt3.jacksonville.fl.da.uu.net) – 06 Sep 2003 03:30:54 [ September ]

Saw an article about your work on a font site, so I decided to jet on over to see what was up. I haven't looked at your work yet, but I have seen a few paragraphs on your personals! You're funny! That mushroom "thing" was interesting!...:-) But what compelled me to comment, was the end of this paragraph! (I laughed!) "uh,bye" I have a friend that I send e-mail to, & I'm a "detail" person. We've been friends for 25 yrs. More like family. I send a 3 page e-mail, (I love this!) and I get... "Well, alrighty then!" I roar with laughter everytime I get that! But then I see the face that goes with it, along with the playful attitude, behind it! And I KNOW that on and off all day, this person will think of that reply, and giggle about it! So then I send a [LA=GRAM!]:-) Your "uh,bye" made me think about that! Thanks for the smile! JustBevi

688. mike (h-66-167-9-120.phlapafg.covad.net) – 06 Sep 2003 02:22:34 [ More on Tom 1 (2?) ]

I totally ruled. I'm going to be the John Conner of the upcoming robot wars.

687. Tom 7 (gs82.sp.cs.cmu.edu) – 05 Sep 2003 17:41:16 [ A New Kind of Logic ]

Not really strong normalization (though I believe that would be true, too), but the existence of normal proofs for any provable proposition. That's an important property, I hear, for having a good Martin-Lo:f approved logic.

I have, also, many times today, thought of writing a program to do this proof for me. But now I am stuck on a case (called, amusingly, GOTO), which any such program surely would not have handled...

686. Jeff (phd15.cs.yale.edu) – 05 Sep 2003 16:52:24 [ A New Kind of Logic ]

This is why I was trying to get the Twelf theorem prover to prove cut elimination for me (8 times over, actually) earlier in the summer, but unfortunately the only theorem that I got it to prove successfully was false (one of its immediate consequences: every term in the simply-typed lambda calculus is canonical). Since I don't have the patience to prove cut elimination once, let alone 8 times, I'll have to wait until the Twelf theorem prover is reimplemented, or, more likely, reimpliment it myself (which is a scary proposition in and of itself, since my h4x0r1ng 5k1llz, which were never that great to begin with, are uber-rusty by now).

Are you using cut elimination to try to prove strong-normalization of your symmetric, modal lambda calculus, or is this something else?

685. Adam (lynx.auton.cs.cmu.edu) – 05 Sep 2003 15:04:54 [ A New Kind of Logic ]

I like ponies.

684. mike (cmu-89128.wv.cc.cmu.edu) – 05 Sep 2003 14:49:09 [ A New Kind of Logic ]

booooooooooooooooooooring

683. Tom 7 (h-66-167-9-120.phlapafg.covad.net) – 05 Sep 2003 09:50:05 [ Bathroom? Mushroom! ]

Man, I need a whole space-suit in order to kill them??

682. Adam (dsl093-061-064.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net) – 05 Sep 2003 00:53:30 [ Bathroom? Mushroom! ]

This disturbing page may lend some idea...

http://www.moldinspection.com/mold_killer_fungicide.htm

681. Anonymous (cobamide.bio.pitt.edu) – 04 Sep 2003 13:06:19 [ Bathroom? Mushroom! ]

Collect the spores and study them.
This could be a scientific break through!