To refresh everyone's memory, at one point on these boards, when a thread got to be more than a certain length, sometimes posts were lost in the archiving process. In April and May of 2004, the Ruled Paper thread, then apparently only nine pages, fell victim to this and about a month's worth of posts were removed never to reappear. (Recently I was mystified when posts from students at a certain high school which shall remain nameless disappeared from the board--but those reappeared!)

Anyhow, in 2004 I managed to save a snapshot or something of the lost posts from some sort of cached version but couldn't figure out how to repost it in its original form--and didn't want to just paste in other people's posts under my own username. I saved the posts in text in case the original went bad, which it seems to have--in any case, I can't open it--and Google searches reveal no cached version online--so maybe the version I had disappeared when the source went off the internet. I don't pretend to understand all this. All I can do is copy and paste the texts a few at a time until I've got them all. I will bold the usernames to make clear who wrote what. Enjoy this blast from the past!

"Ray Bradbury Discussion Board / Ray's Legacy"
"Ruled Paper - A Miscellany of Topics (Page 3) This topic is 9 pages long"

groon Member posted 04-14-2004 07:18 PM

Ettil, Yes, after so many posts, you just become a member. When I first got here I thought you had to pay, but then someone mentioned that it goes by number of posts, and I looked down and I had been a full on member already without even knowing it! Dandelion Just an interesting factoid. Apparently Dr. Seuss coined the word "wussy" although not used in the same context as it is now.

Ettil Member posted 04-24-2004 10:02 PM

I got a question for Dandelion. how did you become a moderator? were at the site from the beggining or something? im just curious.

Mr. Dark Member posted 04-24-2004 11:15 PM

Ettil: Trying to claw your way up the hierarchical ladder? :-)

dandelion Moderator posted 04-25-2004 12:52 AM

In response to a number of abusive and annoying posts being left unremoved for a long time on the board, several of us sent both e-mails and snail mails to the publisher, HarperCollins. The e-mails went pretty well ignored, but the snail mails drew some notice. When the person then in charge went to the board, she saw how much I had contributed to the discussion. We had to notify her every time an abusive situation came up so she could moderate. When a second wave of abusive posts appeared, she offered me the moderator job which I accepted. (Yes, I am supposed to be compensated, but although I have received no acknowledgement nor compensation in about a year I am still here twice a day.)

Ettil Member posted 04-25-2004 04:12 PM

err, no. ive been a moderator before on another site but i eventually had to quit....... too much commitment. im just curious thats all.

Mr. Dark
Member posted 04-25-2004 07:43 PM

Ettil: I was just kiddin'.

Nard Kordell
Member posted 04-27-2004 11:33 PM

Where else do you put something like this?: Letters from school kids, on their trip to Waukegan, to see where Ray lived and got inspired...
http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/student...ewitness_letters.htm

groon
Member posted 04-29-2004 02:57 PM

Dandelion,
We are most grateful!

Nard Kordell
Member posted 05-08-2004 08:17 AM

Somebody out there...

tell me...

...how does a bird know how to build a nest? Now don't tell me this 'instinct' stuff. Some knowledgeable person out there, explain how a bird knows how to construct, go about constructing, know what to choose, how to shape the nest to make it functional...with all the materials, a nest...

Thank You!

[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 05-08-2004).]

Yestermorrow
Member posted 05-09-2004 04:19 AM

Well, not that I'm especially knowledgeable, but I imagine that aside from 'instinct', which of course is a large part of it, there may be some observational learning going on there. Who knows?

Mr. Dark
Member posted 05-09-2004 09:56 AM

I'm curious. Why NOT instinct? Animals typically have a short learning period as opposed to persons -- who take forever to learn. We do very little on pure instinct. We reason -- even if we do so poorly. The fact of a reasoning capability in man seems to be a kind of instinct. As I say, some develop it to a high level and some don't, but the capacity to reason seems inborn to the human species.

Animals do seem to do things based on instinct. What do you mean when you preclude it up front? It's not like birds take classes in nest building, or have to get certification to fly. When they're ready, they just do it.

Study of migratory flight patterns seems to indicate some modeling is required in some cases, but the conclusions drawn of even that research are pretty controversial.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 05-09-2004).]

Nard Kordell
Member posted 05-09-2004 01:19 PM

Mr. Dark:
Yestermorrow:

This is a long shot... but listen on.

I find this nest... attached to a rain-gutter by the eave of the house, and it's abandoned last fall, so I had to remove it and I placed it by the railing of the front steps, and I was looking at it the other day and thought about how in the world birds figure this out. Well, this thing 'instinct' !! What is it, really... And all this... all this said ... to apply to THIS:

I talked to Ray recently and he expresses... just knowing. Knowing what it takes to write, already knowing the 'intuitive' meanderings that find results like... writing, expressions in the arts that defy explanation. So, like the bird that built that nest... how does an artist, gifted with intuitive talent, produce the finished piece? Bird: Nest. Bradbury: novels and short stories and poetry.

How is this pre-designed system work? And why?

dandelion
Moderator posted 05-09-2004 04:34 PM

Nard, Ray and I touched on this subject (not to the point of getting an "answer," so I'm not holding out on you) in our conversation on May 1 but I just haven't taken time to post it yet.

Nard Kordell
Member posted 05-10-2004 02:09 AM

'''Post it, then, Lassie Dandelion.... less we all loose the mighty reasonings behind the questions laid bare before all. The quest is at hand. What say you, therefore? Let us hear for we perish otherwise....'''

author unknown

Nard Kordell
Member posted 05-10-2004 02:29 PM

Dandelion... Still waiting to hear from you...

fjpalumbo
Member posted 05-10-2004 03:22 PM

Zen!

Ettil
Member posted 05-10-2004 03:38 PM

how did the first humans learn to walk? how did they know pineapple would be a pretty good food? how do ants know what to do? its all pretty weird to me. but my answer is:
THEY JUST DID. im sure many people or animals have died doing bad things, and thats how evoluition works. you know, Darwin, and where animals compete for stuff, like food, and on and on. all these things happened from BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of years of evolution. you know, we were apes once! before that we were small fury creatures similar to rats!

OR: we can look at this the religious way. we could just say: Because God taught them to. or: well, i dont know many other theories. anyone got any?


PS: man, you guys really made me think there.

[This message has been edited by Ettil (edited 05-10-2004).]

Translator
Member posted 05-10-2004 03:46 PM

1) They were taught by Martians how to walk.
2) They were first able to run very quickly, but there were so many things along the way they were missing when they were running very quickly that they slowed down their running to a walk.
3) There are no other people except you, and you're just a big brain in a vat. Since you're the only person on earth (that there ever was, by the way), and you have no legs, people never actually learned to walk.
Need more theories...?

Nard Kordell
Member posted 05-10-2004 05:05 PM

Translator:

Your comments made me think that this may be a really funny thing you can make out of all this ..if you spent a little time thinking it over...

For instance...

'''In the beginning, humans were really many distinct creatures. There were fingers only, and arms with hands and no fingers, and just a ear out fending for itself... surviving by its keen sense of hearing...
And just one eye, who couldn't see dimensionally until that eye teamed up with another eye. And then there were feet, that moved all about everywhere, and really were a magnet to these other parts who didn't like staying in the same place too long. And then, once upon an eon, they all began to meet and... well, everything else is history.

[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 05-10-2004).]

Translator
Member posted 05-10-2004 05:12 PM

Sounds like some kind of sci-fi short story to me already...
Cheers, Translator

Nard Kordell
Member posted 05-10-2004 08:42 PM

e v e r y o n e :::: : :

Wow!
This web site is great.
For anyone who likes to play online computer games... this one is super inventive, and great even for kids. Really love the 'CATS" one. It's just a lot of fun:::::::::

click on: http://www.ferryhalim.com/orisinal/

groon
Member posted 05-11-2004 05:36 PM

The walking topic reminded me of Frost and Fire, where everyone's life lasted about seven days. The question is not how we learned to walk, but why do we all learn to walk the same way? Is there no better way of walking? Is it only because that's how it's always been done?
Nard, I don't get the cats game. I made them sit and walk, but couldn't figure out if I was playing the game properly. Is there a goal? I'll try some of the other ones later.

Nard Kordell
Member posted 05-11-2004 05:51 PM

groon:

The 'CAT' that is highlighted, sits or walks, and you have to click the mouse on the other cats to mimic the 'highlighted cat'. If you got them ''all'' doing the same thing, large scoring numbers began counting points...until one of the cats changes position...then you have to get them all in order again....
Try the Pirate Ship with the chunks of mountain coming down out of the sky along with the occasional dragon. With earphones on to hear the cannon balls '''boooming''', etc... it's really entertaining... for a little while anyway...
(( The Pirate Ship is 4th row down, counting in the 5th game from the left side ))


[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 05-11-2004).]

groon
Member posted 05-11-2004 06:35 PM

Wow, speedy response! Cool, I get it. Thanks!

Nard Kordell
Member posted 05-13-2004 08:32 PM

Now... THIS...you might even call a 'Ray Bradburyish' type of online game....

Wind, bikes, summer, kites... gee!!!!
http://ferryhalim.com/orisinal/g3/windy.htm

grasstains
Member posted 05-14-2004 04:22 PM

We play those games. My kids like the "the deep sea diver dude" and I like the snow bowling. I found it through another board I frequent. They had a "favorite links" thread, maybe we should start one.

Translator
Member posted 05-14-2004 04:50 PM

Mr Dark, I welcome you back to the discussion. I was sure you had enough. bet let us get on:

Japan: A defensive war does not allow the defender to commit war attrocities - nuclear bombs are not very picky when it comes to who dies and who doesn't. By claiming that it does, you are absolving Hussain of the very crimes he commited - there was a reason why he slaughtered 300 000 people, and the reason was that his rule was endagered. To secure his rule, he killed people. To secure sovreignity (which essentially means rule), the US killed millions through the bombs. But this is not the point here - the point was about the deaths resulting from the actions of the two sides. If you're going to post numbers, so am I.

Korea: Not that these invaders were attacking America, that's One, and Two - once again, carpet-bombing (war atrocities!) the cities in North controlled areas was not a very reasonable or humane way to battle the "Red Devils".

Vietam: Sure it's confusing. Up to a point where a couple of million people died (this alone beats the 300 000).

Serbia: Sure, except that atrocities were commited by both sides, and America (granted, Nato, but under American sway) took sides. The result? "we have, er, accidentally, er, bombed a number of refugee convoys resulting in many deaths..." or "the bombing of the serbian train with 5 missiles was an unfortuante collateral damage; it kind of sneaked up on us while we were busting a bridge...". Etc, etc.

Afghanistan: Fine. I'll give you this one. But admit that there were more than 3000 civilan deaths in this war (because there were).

Iraq One - first time nuclear-enriched missiles were used; coupled with the embargo they contributed to something like a million deaths from starvation, we have an impressive tally of innocent victims.

Irag 2: What on earth are you talking about with Iraq two? What cease fire? One that lasts over a decade? It's like saying that WW2 was a continuation of WW1, which was a continuation of the Boer war, etc. I do agree that Iraq two was a resumption of hostilities, but it was a seperate war. Iraq was not invading any country; it had a crack and highly-trained military that was using T-52's (which saw WW2 action), and its elite airforce was flying the fearsome kites (as in a canavass streched on some sticks). It was a hostility, but one-sided.

I cannot distinguish between the loss of life, not between territorial wars and torture. The WMD's with which Hussain gassed the Kurds and the Iranians were (...drumroll...) given to him by Rumslfeld and the American administration when they backed, with military force, Hussain's bid for power in Iraq. So yes, Hussain did kill a lot of people. He did gas them to death. He did torture and rape his subjects. But answer me this one thing - Is launching a war on him, a war where 15 000 people die (and countless others are injured , thousands are tortured, the infrastructure is destroyed (including the hospitals, the museums, the roads, waterworks, and just about everything else), and the power is about to be given up to a bunch of clerics who are waiting to impose a taliban-like rule on the Iraqis, is such a war, I ask, a reasonable way to overcome Hussain and his oppresive government, especially as the crimes of Hussain are over a decade old? I think not. He was deposed, there is no question about it, but the drawbacks in this case far outweight the benefits (it's kind of akin to saying that the holocaust was justified because the fields of Europe were fertalized by the ashes of the burned people, and many future generations benefited from it). Iraqis are hungry, they are scared, they see foreign militias is their cities who want to do damage to the americans, and any others who appear the least bit progressive. I could go on, but I won't. You get the picture. And the problem here is that all of this was forseen way before the war actually started. In fact, if Iraq did have the WMD's as America claimed, and used them, do you know how many victims there would be? Millions! And yet America did got to war!
I should also mention that the US violated the UN charter by invading Iraq and freeing the iraqis from their opressor. No nation can do that without UN approval. Otherwise, it acts as bad as the opressor it is after. The UN did not think there was genocide happening in Iraq. So what was the war for?

Just war et al: I have. I mentioned once before that my grandmother nearly perished in Aushwitz, so I had first-hand experiance with the topic, as well as bland theory. Genocide was not happening in Iraq. There is no such thing as a just war. American territorial integrity was not threatened. Murder and rape is no justification for war (I believe the highiest murder and rape statistics are in the US, maybe it should be invaded?).

I do not have an absolutist world view; I am, however, angered when innocent people die, world stability is threatened, and lies are perpetuated because some cowboys think Earth is a big "Risk!" board and the object is to win the game. Life and death are not complicated, Mr Dark, only people who see a profit in creating problems keep on insisting that it is. My interpretation of things is not simple and naive. If you like to think that there is something especially complex in lauching a war of unprovoked agression, then so be it. But know that you are in the vast minority in this our peace-loving world.

Cheers, Translator

Mr. Dark
Member posted 05-14-2004 05:12 PM

Again, we're just beating a dead horse. Your world view -- contrary to your expression -- is very one-sided and simplistic. America is always bad. America is responsible for all violence, war, inhumanity. America is always wrong. For me, these issues are more complex.

I do think there is a theoretical "just war" -- as in WWII to pick a pretty well accepted example. You seem to assume I like war or that I take war lightly. I do not. I was responding to someone's categorization of Bush/America as a war monger. I simply don't see it in those kinds of simplistic terms.

We will not agree on this.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 05-14-2004).]

Translator
Member posted 05-14-2004 05:43 PM

I do not believe America is always bad. I never have, and I never will. There is no such thing as a nation being "bad" intrinsically. I do believe that America is and was responsible for quite a lot of pain and suffering and innocent death, but that does not stray away from the facts, and by admitting that I am not painting America more black than it is. I respect the American values, I believe in the American way of life, and I support the American Charter of rights (minus the religious parts). But if America errs, and it does so often in the 20th century, then I can't do anything but critisize the errors. That I don't count off the good points is no indication that I'm not aware of them.
Maybe, just maybe, you are right about a just war. But the circumstances have to be pretty severe to justify one. The Iraqi war had nothing of these sort of justifications, hence I opposed it, and still oppose it, very much.
Bush is a warmonger; I seriously hope that America itself isn't. Anybody who calls for war is a warmonger. Assuming that there is a just cause to go to war (once again, there may be one, I give you that), a warmonger in that case might be out to do good. But this case was not that hypothetical case. Bush was a lying and cheating warmonger who went unilaterally to war against a country that did not threaten America or any other nation. Period. There is no complexity here (if there is, point to some. Let's debate the claim that Bush is a liar and a cheater. let's debate the justification to go to war. If you're not able to debate this for a lack of proof to the contrary, and a whole lot of proof for these assertions, then I cannot take your point of view seriously. That is why I called your points by the rather negative epiteths in the other posts).

If you do consider war to be as serious as you make it out to be, then why not educate yourself about the current situation a bit? I can, if you want to, show you some liks to reputable newspapers that will paint a rather bleak piture of Bush and his war. If not, then yes, we will never agree, but only because you choose to run away from reality.

Cheers, Translator


Mr. Dark
Member posted 05-14-2004 06:24 PM

Again, Translator, I'm apparently only educated on these issues when I agree with you. You have one view of this multiplicity of events. I have another.

It's a bit like talking to my mom about religion. She tells me to pray. I tell her I do. She tells me to pray more earnestly and with more faith. I tell her I have. The point is, my prayers will never be enough until I agree with her point of view.

Discussing these issues is very much like that with you. You've made up your mind, and your interpretation of events is the only one that is valid. This is apparently so by definition.

Nard Kordell
Member posted 05-14-2004 09:43 PM

Translator
Mr. Dark
__________________________________________
'There will always...be wars, and rumors of wars..."
• Jesus Christ
__________________________________________

Now...why is that?!!

I watched and listened to Arab TV the other week, and it appears it is televised from Chicago. The one guest on the program I watched insisted that Saddam was captured long before it was splashed in the media about his capture. His proof? Saddam's capture, filmed at the time it happened, had a certain tree in the background that only blooms months earlier than the supposed time of his capture. Meaning...he was captured months before.

Well, with this... I got a little interested in seeing what lengths the program would go. And after watching the program, you would be convinced that everything you read in the papers, the American papers, is total fabrication, and everyone is a liar.

Then I put on The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. Wow! He says things on the program that are honestly unnerving. But, there he is with Jesse Jackson, Fr. Michael Pfleger, and other dignitaries, celebrating Mass at Saint Sabina Catholic Church on the southside of Chicago. And a year before , I listened to The Honorable wonder aloud before TV cameras about 'why'...'WHY'!!! would anyone bomb the World Trade Center??? What would infuriate someone to do that??And he went thru a litany of the troubles that America has caused to create this atmosphere. Well...

My point... all this is far far f a r beyond my intellect to reason with. Every Tom Dick, Harry and Abdul ...and throw in a dozen others, have permeated America from a 'melting pot' to a 'boiling point'...
To say there is no end to Wars is an understatement.

Instead of debating about who killed who, and how many here or then, consider the 'root' of all wars....


[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 05-14-2004).]

Ettil
Member posted 05-15-2004 01:06 PM

your points are very interresting. I agree with the translator some, and Dark some. o well.

The only, ONLY, ONLY, war i feel is justified is the european campagn of WW2. if the U.S. didnt come in, if the USSR didnt fight back, if England didnt call for help, that whole half of the world, and maybe more, would be Jew-free and Nazi ruled. all other wars in my mind are not justified, and i do believe america is quite corrupt. if you look at things in america hard enough, its all about money. even wars. when america goes to war, BOOM! Lockheed Martin gets tons of money!

well, i dont wanna get a in a whole thing about this, but what is say is "Give Peace A Chance."

Translator
Member posted 05-15-2004 02:10 PM

I only have a couple of minutes, so I'll make it short. If I believe I am right, it is because I have debated the points from both sides, and found one seriously lacking, thus making me believe the other. I am giving you a chance to answer my assertions, but all you're doing is calling my points one-sided. I claim that my view on things is supported by facts, and that yours isn't. If I am saying things that are wrong, fling them back at me. Start proving that my interpretation of the events is not valid. Start proving that your view is more closer to truth and what actually happened than mine. It's nice and easy to call someone mistaken. But if I've interpreted things wrongly, do point them out to me. Tell me your version of what is happening. Tell me how I'm wrong. Please.
Cheers, Translator

PS - Won my first game. 4 more to go.

Mr. Dark
Member posted 05-15-2004 04:42 PM

I think I've exhausted myself (and everyone else) on a topic not related to Bradbury. You assume there is only one interpretation of history. I think these issues are more complex. I disagree with your view on some of these and think America -- more well-intentioned than many nations -- has made some mistakes.

As I am re-asserting that you have a one-sided interpretation, you are re-asserting that your interpretation is the only correct one apparently because your study of it is allegedly better than mine.

Debating the interpretation of history here is fruitless. We both hold strong views.

I agree with you that Bradbury is one of the great writers -- a writer who is, in my view, under-appreciated by much of academia (although I think he will have his day!) -- and I will love and respect that shared perception in you. We disagree on how we interpret world history. That's okay.

'nuff said on this.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 05-15-2004).]

Translator
Member posted 05-15-2004 06:17 PM

Ok, fine. If you wish not to discuss this, then don't. But if and when I see that you are making comments about this issue, I will once again restart this whole thing again.
For the record, I think that America (or rather, the people of America) are well intentioned as well; it is only a minority (which happens to currently rule) that is not well-intentioned. Also, throughout history, some of the good intentions were seriously undermined by the very bad way of implementing them.
I do not believe in the "correct" interpretation of history; I believe rather in learned and educated interpretations of history vs unlearned and uneducated interpretations. It is my fundamental belief that opinions based on facts and logic are more trustworthy than opinions which are not, and that is what I was arguing for many times. I wish for truth to prevail (or rather, the most reasonable interpretation of that truth. Truth with a capital T will never be known). I also don't see a reason why debating history is fruitless - insight and knowledge is gained through debate, and history is as perfect a topic as any (less so than philosophy, of course, for history relies heavilly on facts and occurences). But ok, let's let it be.

Finally, I do think that Bradbury's time will finally come, though I also think it has already. There are courses offered on him in my university (well, on sci-fi in general, but he's the main man).

Cheers, Translator

Game two won. Maybe I'll even take first place?

Mr. Dark
Member posted 05-15-2004 06:31 PM

Translator:

This is why I won't discuss this with you:

"I do not believe in the "correct" interpretation of history; I believe rather in learned and educated interpretations of history vs unlearned and uneducated interpretations. It is my fundamental belief that opinions based on facts and logic are more trustworthy than opinions which are not, and that is what I was arguing for many times."

I dont' know how to interpret this except that: Any view that is not yours is "unlearned and uneducated". This is simply not a climate for meaningful discussion.

And why do you say "Game Two (and earlier) and Game One won"? Were we fighting for victory? And are you the sole judge of who the victor is?

I neither claim "victory" nor accept the designation of "loser". Seems kind of juvenile to me.

Adios,

Mr. Dark

P.S. You say if you see me raise this again, you'll respond. I didn't "raise" it. I responded to someone calling the Bush administration War Mongers. It's not an issue I raised. It's an accusation I responded to.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 05-15-2004).]

Nard Kordell
Member posted 05-15-2004 08:11 PM

Mr. Dark:

You may be the 'teacher' in real life...but...
....Translator is efficient in...''chess''....and ''fencing''. So there is the ''game'', and the logic thereof, and the quickness and resolute of ''fencing''... but where is the touche' ?

lmskipper[B]
Member posted 05-16-2004 12:31 AM

When Translator was saying he won Game One and Game Two, I believe he was refering to some kind of tournament he's in this weekend. I think he mentioned it on another thread, but I can't remember which one, or I'd go back and check for sure. I don't think he was talking about your ongoing debate.....

[B]lmskipper
Member posted 05-16-2004 12:41 AM

Just found it in another post--he's in a chess tournament this weekend. Whew--at least that's one thing for you two not to fight about. Cheers!

Mr. Dark
Member posted 05-16-2004 12:52 AM

I love chess . . . but I'm absolutely no good at it. No patience, and, apparently no strategic skills. But I still love to play it. One of my favorite movies was "Searching for Bobby Fischer" about a family dealing with a child who is a great chess player. Really a great movie.

Hope he does well. It's a great game.

This is more than a bit distressing as something was lost in translation. Either my original web capture did not include all the lost posts, the text copy only got one page out of the six missing, or (scariest yet but what seems to have happened) the missing posts disappeared after I saved them to a file on my computer!* In particular, I remember posting a picture of Robert Fuller in a kimono and having a silly exchange with Nard in which he kept saying, "I wouldn't take him as Japanese." Anyhow, what appears above is as much as I was able to recover from what I did manage to save. As I say, a computer savvy person may have been able to do more, sooner, better.

Checking the original thread, I see the last reply there was March 29, so anything between then and April 14 is missing, then I seem to have saved everything between then and May 16, then nothing till August 26, when Nard observed "about 300 posts are missing here."

On 09-16-2004, I posted that I found a 9-page version of this thread by doing a Google search. Pages 3-9 were those missing, ending with a post on page 9 dated August 25. I thought I had copied the entire thing to files on my computer in several formats. When I checked just now, I found only two: a file showing the original thread in the old format, beginning exactly before and ending exactly after the missing pages, and a text copy I obviously made from whatever I saved at the time, showing one page--apparently page 3, or the first of the six missing. Somehow the other five never got transferred to text, and then disappeared from the copy I made--so they really are lost!

This, sadly, may be a drop in the bucket to what may have been lost since. When the publisher changed message board hosts, they were supposed to transfer all the posts over. According to the counts, which Nard kept track of--I didn't--a fairish number of them didn't make it--and there was no way of knowing WHICH! Again, when the publisher was notified that the old board still existed, they were supposed to incorporate all that had been added into this board, and again, according to Nard's count, not all of them made it. So if you can't find an old conversation you remember having here, it could be floating around somewhere in the Twilight Zone!

Of course, it could be worse. Think of people who would like to entirely eradicate certain things from the web for all time--only people keep saving and reposting them!

*No, it just got weirder than that. I have an HTML of the thread showing a 9-page document including the missing contents of page 3 transcribed above. But when I click on page 4 to try to find the next missing page, it takes me to, apparently, a cached version of the old thread not including the missing material! So if I managed to send the file to some machine not online, would the HTML include the other pages with the missing material, or not? They show up as "there," but I can't open them!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dandelion,

More weirdness. Disconnected from the internet, my HTML version of the thread won't open page 4 at all--sees it as a web address and says I am not connected. Connected, I tried opening with both TextEdit and Bean and it still takes me to the 2006 version of the page--not the missing pages from 2004 which I was trying to preserve. When I disconnect, it will take me to the 2006 page 4, but on subsequent pages says I am not connected to the internet. It seems I may have managed to capture a picture of the lost page 3 that the computer somehow takes as a link to the current version of the page in its original format, but perhaps I didn't save the other missing pages at the time I thought I had which are now irretrievable. Interestingly enough, the publishers were supposed to have destroyed the original forum when they set up the current one but I can still access it though this link and have also found it in Google searches. This, in a way, is good, if anyone with time, patience, and knowledge has any idea how to really preserve website contents--and not make the hash of it I did of being unable to get even one whole thread let alone all that were on there--since it seems many from the original board did not make the move. This is a job for someone else as I have had it.

The original source for the picture of Robert Fuller in a kimono doesn't exist anymore but here are two pictures of him in a kimono anyway: