No, of course I realised that if a frog won't croak, it...
...might be because it's been dissected.
That was (since we are "dissecting frogs" already) what one part -- the "obvious" part, I thought; the one that was supposed to be noticed and thus distract the reader from the other, "subtler" one -- of *my* attempt meant: If a frog were three hundred years old, it could hardly be expected to croak any more.
Because...
...it's croaked long ago, as it were.
(I wonder if anyone caught my other, "semi-subtle", references...?)
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
You know you're doing good work when you get flamed by an idiot. -- [link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/34218.html|Andrew Wittbrodt]