Re: Question for Christian re: Norwegians in Sweden

Randy Karaoke confuses East and West:

I'm just guessing, but...Sweden and Norway were politically united for almost six centuries (until 1905) [...]

Naah -- 't'was Finland wot was a part of Sweden for a good long while, ~1200 (1150? 1250?) - 1809.

Norway and Sweden were only -- disregarding the Union of Kalmar, when all three of the Scandinavian countries were united under the same king (or, at times, queen), 1397 - 1521 -- united in a "personal union", having the same king but different laws and (at least part of the time) currencies, for less than a century, 1814/1815 - 1905.

[...] and are still bound by ties of culture and language. Might it be that the distinction does not yet, after 98 years, loom large enough from the Swedish side to merit a separate entry for Norwegian nationals resident in Sweden?

I'll grant you "culture and language", but since Duncan and his Mom found the Finns -- who were Swedes for six centuries -- listed as a separate(*) immigrant category, I don't think that's it.

"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."

"Eine Tautologie ist, wenn Mann sagt was sich auch so versteht" ?

(*): And, overwhelmingly, the largest.

R. Careaga takes umbrage at my characterization of his Scandahoovian geography and history:

My history may have been imprecise, but it 'twaren't backward. I was indeed thinking of Norway; pending further research I will take your word for it--since you have been established for a while in the neighborhood--that I overstated the degree of the union.

That is, the history and geography -- not your history and geography -- of the Scandinavian countries has had so many ups and downs that it's all pretty much upside-down, by now... What one would think of as the most logical candidates for Brotherhood Between The Nations, with their long common border (and both being rather long and thin countries, so nowhere in either one are you all that far away from the other) and their relatively long common history, Sweden and Norway still... just *don't* seem to percieve each other as being all that close, for some reason.

F'rinstance, remember that Guillotine joke I told some time ago? How "the stupid one" there was the Norwegian? That's typical of Swedish jokes; like the Brits have the Irish, the Merkins the Arkansians or other "rednecks", the Germans the "Ossis" (though in this context, that used to mean East Frisians, not East Germans), and so on, so we Swedes have the Norwegians as our stereotype of stupidity. Dunno why, really, that's just "the way it's always been". You'd think peoples who are basically so similar would get along better, but... (Unless this is a general Nordic look-down-on-your-Western-neighbour syndrome; to the Finns, it's the Swedes who are the stereotype of stupidity! :-)

[Quoting me:]
I'll grant you "culture and language"
Very big of you, sir, that being the point of my speculation.

Yeah, I'm generous that way.

Surely while the Swedes might have considered the Finns to be (second-class?) Swedes,

Funnily -- or sadly, depending on how you look at it -- it seems to me to be the other way around: The Finns *themselves*, *now*, nurture a self-image of having been looked down upon and trampled on, but (the minority of?) Swedes who know that they used to be part of the realm don't seem to see it that way; *I* certainly don't. These were the Eastern provinces, just like any other provinces... Therein, though, lies a little bit of a rub: It may well be that in practice, in the olden days, Finns were at a bit of a disadvantage -- but no more so, I contend, than other very provincial parts of Sweden. It's just that there weren't many towns and cities, so they all just "naturally happened to be" country bumpkins... So, did Sweden *deliberately make and keep* them provincial (by, for example, refusing to found cities, cathedrals, and universities in the Eastern provinces)? I don't know for sure, but on the whole, I would imagine that no, they did not.

the Finns themselves (who hailed at some time in the past from the vicinity of present-day Turkey, did they not?)

The most recent research, according to some TV documentary that I saw half (and promptly forgot most) of, moved their origin across the Urals. Unfortunately, the most pertinent bit I can't remember was whether it was moved from West to East, or vice versa... But, be that any which way, this was a time in the *distant* past; even before the common era, IIRC. Also, it is questionable to which extent, or *which* "they", originated there: Their *language* is certainly a Fenno-Ugric one, but recent genetics research seems to indicate that the Finnish *people* are of common stock with most other European peoples, whereas most other speakers of Fenno-Ugric languages -- Lapps, Samojeds, and whatnot -- are genetically distinct. One of those cases of a small conquering population imposing their language on a much larger conquered one, and then being assimilated into it to the point of vanishing as a distinct entity? Interesting shtuff, all of this -- but, alas, I know too little about it to give you more than some vague speculations.

clearly held onto a conception of their separate identity over those long centuries, else one might reasonably have expected their linguistic assimilation to have proceeded apace. Hell, i don't know why the Norwegians don't get their own breakout in the official census,

Oh, but they DO -- Heck, just because they're not in some SUMMARY that an American elementary-school-age kid stumbles over in some book, doesn't mean [link|http://www.scb.se/indexeng.asp|Statistics Sweden] is part of some big conspiracy to deny the existence of Norwegians in Sweden!

If you go to their database query tool and look up [link|http://www.scb.se/databaser/makro/Visavar.asp?yp=tansss&xu=C9233001&huvudtabell=UtlmedbR&deltabell=02&deltabellnamn=Foreign+citizens+in+Sweden+by+country+of+citizenship+and+sex%2E+Year&omradekod=BE&omradetext=Population&preskat=O&innehall=Utlmedb&starttid=1973&stopptid=2002&Prodid=BE0101&Fromwhere=S&lang=2&langdb=2|Foreign citizens in Sweden by country of citizenship and sex](*), for example, you'll find that the number of Norwegian citizens living in Sweden grew from 26,575 in 1973 to 34,672 in 2002. And from [link|http://www.scb.se/databaser/makro/Visavar.asp?yp=tansss&xu=C9233001&huvudtabell=UtrikesFoddaR&deltabell=02&deltabellnamn=Foreign%2Dborn+persons+in+Sweden+by+country+of+birth+and+sex%2E+Year&omradekod=BE&omradetext=Population&preskat=O&innehall=UtrikesFodda&starttid=2000&stopptid=2002&Prodid=BE0101&Fromwhere=S&lang=2&langdb=2|Foreign-born persons in Sweden by country of birth and sex], we see that in 2002 there were 44,474 Norwegian-born people living in Sweden. So, a quick subtraction and a rough division tell us that 9,802 -- only about 22% -- of native-Norwegians in Sweden had taken Swedish (presumably!) citizenship.

Now, I didn't look for the biggest numbers in the all-countries listings, but I know there are about a million Finns and direct descendants of Finns in Sweden; and ISTR that both Irani and Iraqi refugees, for example, number in the hundreds -- or at least, the higher tens -- of thousands... So I'm not sure if it is as I thought at first, that the number of Norwegians was so small as to put them further down the ranking list (35 or 45 thousand isn't all *that* little, in a country of less than ten million), or if it was perhaps just that the makers of that (presumably American?) summary Scott referenced at the start of this thread who thought a fairly large number of immigrants from right next door was too "naturally obvious" to merit mentioning.

But I'm fairly sure it's either one of those explanations; I promise, if I were aware of any campaign to deny the existence of Norwego-Swedes for some nefarious reason or other, I'd let you know. :-)

but I'd guess that on the ground there they are approximately as hard to pick out vs. Finns as, in California, a Canadian might be as opposed to a Mexican, eh?

Nope, don't think so. Matter of fact, I wouldn't wonder if it's actually *easier* to pick out Norwegians than Finns.

You see, for Finland-Swedes (whose propensity to emigrate westwards is even higher than for Finns on average), Swedish is their *native* language. They speak not "with an accent", but *a dialect* of Swedish -- so, from just talking to them, they blend in really well. They also have, usually, perfectly ordinary Swedish-sounding names. As for the Finns "proper", they learn "the second domestic" language (Swedish for them; Finnish for the Swedish-speakers) as their first -- oops, I almost wrote "foreign", there! -- non-native language. That, and the very fact that Finnish is so totally un-related to Swedish, makes their Swedish either noticeably foreign-accented -- or, once they've been in Sweden long enough, noticeably *non*-accented!

The poor Norwegians, on the other hand, stick out like a sore thumb as soon as they open their mouths, precisely because they *don't* have to learn "as foreign" a language as the Finns -- they get by either speaking Norwegian as-is, or adopting, after a while, a Norwegian-Swedish mish-mash... Whatever they speak, though, they're liable never to be able to get rid of their native *intonation* -- and if most non-Swedish-speakers find *Swedish* to be "sing-song", I can only assume this is because most of them have never done a comparative listening test of both languages together: Norwegian is *much* more "sing-song" than Swedish! Also, they tend to spell their admittedly *similar* names somewhat more archaichally; a Swedish semi-namesake of king Haakon's, for instance, would be called Håkan, and so on.

(Hmm... It strikes me that this might be why they're the butt of our jokes; their accent sounds, if anything, like some *extremely* rural dialect of Swedish... Maybe Norwegians are the "country yokels" *of our country yokels*?)

"confuses East and West," indeed! Snort!

Hmmuhhyeah, well, sorry... That *was* what it *looked* like.

cordially,

As [almost, I see] ever, and mutually so,

"Erleichtern Sie oben -- es ist nur eine Unterzeichnung!"

Nun ja, aber es ist ja solch eine doofe Signatur, finde ich... Was willst du damit eigentlich sagen? Denn irgendwas wollen wir wohl mit allen diesen Signaturen sagen -- über uns selbst, der Welt, dem Leben, und so weiter... Nicht wahr? (Oh Gott, was für einen HTML-Stil-Salat ich da gebaut hab'!)

Wenn ich mal kurz spekulieren darf, kommt es mir vor als wollte der gute Ludwig (WIMRE?(+)) dies irgend einem grösseres Gedankenbauwerk zu Grunde legen; es sieht verdächtig nach "Ich denke, also bin ich" aus. Stimmt das? Wenn dem so wäre, kann ich nur sagen es funktioniert für mich -- in Gegensatz zum Satz des Franzosen -- nicht: Es weckt keine assoziationen an eine ganze *von anders her bekannte* Gedankenkette. Ob nun der Fehler dafür beim Wittgenstein liegt, oder eher bei mir, darüber brauchen wir uns gar nicht erst streiten -- natürlich liegt er bei mir.

Aber, da ich mir einbilde wenigstens genauso (halb-)gebildet zu sein wie die meisten Leute hier, muss ich sagen ich glaube dein Zitat funktioniert auch bei keinem anderem -- bleibt also übrig nur, dass Du ihn nur zu deinem eigenem hohen vergnügen zitierst. Denn es kann wohl nicht zum angeben sein?

(*): Select Norway (or any other countries you're interested in), skip age and gender, select the years you want stats for, and click "Continue". Unfortunately, if you select many (or all) countries, they aren't ranked by number of people but ordered alphabetically.

(+): "Wenn Ich Mich Richtig Erinnere", = "IIRC". :-)

P.S: Statistics Sweden is perhaps best known domestically for publishing the [link|http://www.scb.se/publkat/allman/a01sa0301eng.asp|Statistical Yearbook of Sweden], an annual "statistical abstract that provides summary statistics on a broad range of conditions and activities in Sweden". The 2003 edition is available to download, whole (~5 MB) or in parts, in .PDF format, from the URL at the beginning of this postscriptum.

Post #100,155 by rcareaga 5/3/03 8:28:22 PM Reply	Re: Question for Christian re: Norwegians in Sweden I'm just guessing, but...Sweden and Norway were politically united for almost six centuries (until 1905) and are still bound by ties of culture and language. Might it be that the distinction does not yet, after 98 years, loom large enough from the Swedish side to merit a separate entry for Norwegian nationals resident in Sweden? cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Post #100,324 by CRConrad 5/5/03 9:34:55 AM Reply	Sorry, your Scandahoovian geography / history is backwards: Randy Karaoke confuses East and West: I'm just guessing, but...Sweden and Norway were politically united for almost six centuries (until 1905) [...] Naah -- 't'was Finland wot was a part of Sweden for a good long while, ~1200 (1150? 1250?) - 1809. Norway and Sweden were only -- disregarding the Union of Kalmar, when all three of the Scandinavian countries were united under the same king (or, at times, queen), 1397 - 1521 -- united in a "personal union", having the same king but different laws and (at least part of the time) currencies, for less than a century, 1814/1815 - 1905. [...] and are still bound by ties of culture and language. Might it be that the distinction does not yet, after 98 years, loom large enough from the Swedish side to merit a separate entry for Norwegian nationals resident in Sweden? I'll grant you "culture and language", but since Duncan and his Mom found the Finns -- who were Swedes for six centuries -- listed as a separate() immigrant category, I don't think that's it. "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist." "Eine Tautologie ist, wenn Mann sagt was sich auch so versteht" ? (): And, overwhelmingly, the largest. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #100,338 by rcareaga 5/5/03 10:33:17 AM Reply	Scandahoovian geography / history is backwards: My history may have been imprecise, but it 'twaren't backward. I was indeed thinking of Norway; pending further research I will take your word for it--since you have been established for a while in the neighborhood--that I overstated the degree of the union. I'll grant you "culture and language" Very big of you, sir, that being the point of my speculation. Surely while the Swedes might have considered the Finns to be (second-class?) Swedes, the Finns themselves (who hailed at some time in the past from the vicinity of present-day Turkey, did they not?) clearly held onto a conception of their separate identity over those long centuries, else one might reasonably have expected their linguistic assimilation to have proceeded apace. Hell, i don't know why the Norwegians don't get their own breakout in the official census, but I'd guess that on the ground there they are approximately as hard to pick out vs. Finns as, in California, a Canadian might be as opposed to a Mexican, eh? "confuses East and West," indeed! Snort! cordially, "Erleichtern Sie oben -- es ist nur eine Unterzeichnung!"
Post #101,049 by CRConrad 5/9/03 10:15:27 AM Reply	Yeah, it is... But it's always been that way! :-) R. Careaga takes umbrage at my characterization of his Scandahoovian geography and history: My history may have been imprecise, but it 'twaren't backward. I was indeed thinking of Norway; pending further research I will take your word for it--since you have been established for a while in the neighborhood--that I overstated the degree of the union. That is, the history and geography -- not your history and geography -- of the Scandinavian countries has had so many ups and downs that it's all pretty much upside-down, by now... What one would think of as the most logical candidates for Brotherhood Between The Nations, with their long common border (and both being rather long and thin countries, so nowhere in either one are you all that far away from the other) and their relatively long common history, Sweden and Norway still... just don't seem to percieve each other as being all that close, for some reason. F'rinstance, remember that Guillotine joke I told some time ago? How "the stupid one" there was the Norwegian? That's typical of Swedish jokes; like the Brits have the Irish, the Merkins the Arkansians or other "rednecks", the Germans the "Ossis" (though in this context, that used to mean East Frisians, not East Germans), and so on, so we Swedes have the Norwegians as our stereotype of stupidity. Dunno why, really, that's just "the way it's always been". You'd think peoples who are basically so similar would get along better, but... (Unless this is a general Nordic look-down-on-your-Western-neighbour syndrome; to the Finns, it's the Swedes who are the stereotype of stupidity! :-) [Quoting me:] I'll grant you "culture and language" Very big of you, sir, that being the point of my speculation. Yeah, I'm generous that way. Surely while the Swedes might have considered the Finns to be (second-class?) Swedes, Funnily -- or sadly, depending on how you look at it -- it seems to me to be the other way around: The Finns themselves, now, nurture a self-image of having been looked down upon and trampled on, but (the minority of?) Swedes who know that they used to be part of the realm don't seem to see it that way; I certainly don't. These were the Eastern provinces, just like any other provinces... Therein, though, lies a little bit of a rub: It may well be that in practice, in the olden days, Finns were at a bit of a disadvantage -- but no more so, I contend, than other very provincial parts of Sweden. It's just that there weren't many towns and cities, so they all just "naturally happened to be" country bumpkins... So, did Sweden deliberately make and keep them provincial (by, for example, refusing to found cities, cathedrals, and universities in the Eastern provinces)? I don't know for sure, but on the whole, I would imagine that no, they did not. the Finns themselves (who hailed at some time in the past from the vicinity of present-day Turkey, did they not?) The most recent research, according to some TV documentary that I saw half (and promptly forgot most) of, moved their origin across the Urals. Unfortunately, the most pertinent bit I can't remember was whether it was moved from West to East, or vice versa... But, be that any which way, this was a time in the distant past; even before the common era, IIRC. Also, it is questionable to which extent, or which "they", originated there: Their language is certainly a Fenno-Ugric one, but recent genetics research seems to indicate that the Finnish people are of common stock with most other European peoples, whereas most other speakers of Fenno-Ugric languages -- Lapps, Samojeds, and whatnot -- are genetically distinct. One of those cases of a small conquering population imposing their language on a much larger conquered one, and then being assimilated into it to the point of vanishing as a distinct entity? Interesting shtuff, all of this -- but, alas, I know too little about it to give you more than some vague speculations. clearly held onto a conception of their separate identity over those long centuries, else one might reasonably have expected their linguistic assimilation to have proceeded apace. Hell, i don't know why the Norwegians don't get their own breakout in the official census, Oh, but they DO -- Heck, just because they're not in some SUMMARY that an American elementary-school-age kid stumbles over in some book, doesn't mean [link\|http://www.scb.se/indexeng.asp\|Statistics Sweden] is part of some big conspiracy to deny the existence of Norwegians in Sweden! If you go to their database query tool and look up [link\|http://www.scb.se/databaser/makro/Visavar.asp?yp=tansss&xu=C9233001&huvudtabell=UtlmedbR&deltabell=02&deltabellnamn=Foreign+citizens+in+Sweden+by+country+of+citizenship+and+sex%2E+Year&omradekod=BE&omradetext=Population&preskat=O&innehall=Utlmedb&starttid=1973&stopptid=2002&Prodid=BE0101&Fromwhere=S&lang=2&langdb=2\|Foreign citizens in Sweden by country of citizenship and sex](), for example, you'll find that the number of Norwegian citizens living in Sweden grew from 26,575 in 1973 to 34,672 in 2002. And from [link\|http://www.scb.se/databaser/makro/Visavar.asp?yp=tansss&xu=C9233001&huvudtabell=UtrikesFoddaR&deltabell=02&deltabellnamn=Foreign%2Dborn+persons+in+Sweden+by+country+of+birth+and+sex%2E+Year&omradekod=BE&omradetext=Population&preskat=O&innehall=UtrikesFodda&starttid=2000&stopptid=2002&Prodid=BE0101&Fromwhere=S&lang=2&langdb=2\|Foreign-born persons in Sweden by country of birth and sex], we see that in 2002 there were 44,474 Norwegian-born people living in Sweden. So, a quick subtraction and a rough division tell us that 9,802 -- only about 22% -- of native-Norwegians in Sweden had taken Swedish (presumably!) citizenship. Now, I didn't look for the biggest numbers in the all-countries listings, but I know there are about a million Finns and direct descendants of Finns in Sweden; and ISTR that both Irani and Iraqi refugees, for example, number in the hundreds -- or at least, the higher tens -- of thousands... So I'm not sure if it is as I thought at first, that the number of Norwegians was so small as to put them further down the ranking list (35 or 45 thousand isn't all that* little, in a country of less than ten million), or if it was perhaps just that the makers of that (presumably American?) summary Scott referenced at the start of this thread who thought a fairly large number of immigrants from right next door was too "naturally obvious" to merit mentioning. But I'm fairly sure it's either one of those explanations; I promise, if I were aware of any campaign to deny the existence of Norwego-Swedes for some nefarious reason or other, I'd let you know. :-) but I'd guess that on the ground there they are approximately as hard to pick out vs. Finns as, in California, a Canadian might be as opposed to a Mexican, eh? Nope, don't think so. Matter of fact, I wouldn't wonder if it's actually easier to pick out Norwegians than Finns. You see, for Finland-Swedes (whose propensity to emigrate westwards is even higher than for Finns on average), Swedish is their native language. They speak not "with an accent", but a dialect of Swedish -- so, from just talking to them, they blend in really well. They also have, usually, perfectly ordinary Swedish-sounding names. As for the Finns "proper", they learn "the second domestic" language (Swedish for them; Finnish for the Swedish-speakers) as their first -- oops, I almost wrote "foreign", there! -- non-native language. That, and the very fact that Finnish is so totally un-related to Swedish, makes their Swedish either noticeably foreign-accented -- or, once they've been in Sweden long enough, noticeably non-accented! The poor Norwegians, on the other hand, stick out like a sore thumb as soon as they open their mouths, precisely because they don't have to learn "as foreign" a language as the Finns -- they get by either speaking Norwegian as-is, or adopting, after a while, a Norwegian-Swedish mish-mash... Whatever they speak, though, they're liable never to be able to get rid of their native intonation -- and if most non-Swedish-speakers find Swedish to be "sing-song", I can only assume this is because most of them have never done a comparative listening test of both languages together: Norwegian is much more "sing-song" than Swedish! Also, they tend to spell their admittedly similar names somewhat more archaichally; a Swedish semi-namesake of king Haakon's, for instance, would be called Håkan, and so on. (Hmm... It strikes me that this might be why they're the butt of our jokes; their accent sounds, if anything, like some extremely rural dialect of Swedish... Maybe Norwegians are the "country yokels" of our country yokels?) "confuses East and West," indeed! Snort! Hmmuhhyeah, well, sorry... That was what it looked like. cordially, As [almost, I see] ever, and mutually so, "Erleichtern Sie oben -- es ist nur eine Unterzeichnung!" Nun ja, aber es ist ja solch eine doofe Signatur, finde ich... Was willst du damit eigentlich sagen? Denn irgendwas wollen wir wohl mit allen diesen Signaturen sagen -- über uns selbst, der Welt, dem Leben, und so weiter... Nicht wahr? (Oh Gott, was für einen HTML-Stil-Salat ich da gebaut hab'!) Wenn ich mal kurz spekulieren darf, kommt es mir vor als wollte der gute Ludwig (WIMRE?(+)) dies irgend einem grösseres Gedankenbauwerk zu Grunde legen; es sieht verdächtig nach "Ich denke, also bin ich" aus. Stimmt das? Wenn dem so wäre, kann ich nur sagen es funktioniert für mich -- in Gegensatz zum Satz des Franzosen -- nicht: Es weckt keine assoziationen an eine ganze von anders her bekannte Gedankenkette. Ob nun der Fehler dafür beim Wittgenstein liegt, oder eher bei mir, darüber brauchen wir uns gar nicht erst streiten -- natürlich liegt er bei mir. Aber, da ich mir einbilde wenigstens genauso (halb-)gebildet zu sein wie die meisten Leute hier, muss ich sagen ich glaube dein Zitat funktioniert auch bei keinem anderem -- bleibt also übrig nur, dass Du ihn nur zu deinem eigenem hohen vergnügen zitierst. Denn es kann wohl nicht zum angeben sein? (): Select Norway (or any other countries you're interested in), skip age and gender, select the years you want stats for, and click "Continue". Unfortunately, if you select many (or all) countries, they aren't ranked by number of people but ordered alphabetically. (+): "Wenn Ich Mich Richtig Erinnere", = "IIRC". :-) P.S: Statistics Sweden is perhaps best known domestically for publishing the [link\|http://www.scb.se/publkat/allman/a01sa0301eng.asp\|Statistical Yearbook of Sweden], an annual "statistical abstract that provides summary statistics on a broad range of conditions and activities in Sweden". The 2003 edition is available to download, whole (~5 MB) or in parts, in .PDF format, from the URL at the beginning of this postscriptum. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad]* (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #101,198 by rcareaga 5/10/03 5:34:17 AM Reply	Zounds! It was foolish indeed for me to have trusted the word of the treacherous admin re Swedish census practices, but had I not done so I would have missed this very detailed, highly enlightening and, ah, uncharacteristically mellow treatise on matters Scandinavian (had you managed to work the remote Icelandic cousins in you could have titled it "Althings Considered"). In the face of such scholarship I withdraw each of my ill-considered speculations in turn, and acknowledge myself an untutored provincial. Bravo! respectfully, "Told I am a poor poet, I merely smile. Told I am a poor scholar, I reach for my heaviest dictionary" --Vladimir Nabokov
Post #101,216 by Ashton 5/10/03 4:32:32 PM Reply	'Tis folly indeed - to offer fanciful musings to CRC on such topics. While he ain't Omniscient like me - you can't ever be quite.. sure.. Which topic he may have grokked to fullness ;-) And bein a furriner, naturally his English is able to transcend the pitiful mewlings of most of us who growed up in the Lost Years - before the EdjaKayshun pResident came from On Low: to fix the World (and presumably US too). ..now this might sound ~~ [image\|/forums/images/warning.png\|0\|This is sarcasm...] but as I hasten to retract the Omniscience bagatelle before Odin can be evoked - I mean only to give credit to an excellent and er eclectic mind destined for --> much Larger things than mere Boolean prestidigitation - one Hopes :-\ufffd Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. ULP! Have you hugged your Cisitalia today?

Welcome to IWETHEY!