Re: Ohms Law - NOT
From: John Larkin (jjSNIPlarkin_at_highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX)
Date: 02/13/05
- Next message: John Larkin: "Re: How to design an infra-red circuit to detect small obstacle (e.g. finger) ?"
- Previous message: anwar: "Re: How to design an infra-red circuit to detect small obstacle (e.g. finger) ?"
- In reply to: Winfield Hill: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Next in thread: Boris Mohar: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Reply: Boris Mohar: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Reply: keith: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Reply: John Smith: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:31:19 -0800
On 13 Feb 2005 13:04:30 -0800, Winfield Hill
<hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:
>Bill Bailley wrote...
>>
>> And could we include the millihelen as the measure of beauty
>> that would launch just one ship.
>
> That's feminine beauty, specifically.
Right. The corresponding masculine unit of beauty is the KiloLarkin.
John
who almost ripped an 800-foot LASH ship off the dock once, turning a
trimpot too far.
- Next message: John Larkin: "Re: How to design an infra-red circuit to detect small obstacle (e.g. finger) ?"
- Previous message: anwar: "Re: How to design an infra-red circuit to detect small obstacle (e.g. finger) ?"
- In reply to: Winfield Hill: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Next in thread: Boris Mohar: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Reply: Boris Mohar: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Reply: keith: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Reply: John Smith: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
