"BTIZ" > writes:

> > Sounds like a true candidate for a Darwin Award.

> he would not qualify.. he's still alive and able to wreck more havoc... but
> maybe his next attempt at nomination he'll succeed... just hope he does not
> take his family with him..

I guess that makes sense if you're just using "Darwin Award" as a
euphemism for "died". But the true meaning (and the definition of the
real award takes account of this) is about removing his contribution
to the gene pool, and by that definition wouldn't we have to hope he
*did* take his children, at least, with him?

Not that I approve of *actually* wishing people dead; just a
theoretical discussion of the terminology.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "BTIZ" > writes:
>
> > > Sounds like a true candidate for a Darwin Award.
>
> > he would not qualify.. he's still alive and able to wreck more havoc...
but
> > maybe his next attempt at nomination he'll succeed... just hope he does
not
> > take his family with him..
>
> I guess that makes sense if you're just using "Darwin Award" as a
> euphemism for "died". But the true meaning (and the definition of the
> real award takes account of this) is about removing his contribution
> to the gene pool, and by that definition wouldn't we have to hope he
> *did* take his children, at least, with him?
>

Well, if you really want to be tecnical about it, one doesn't have to die to
recieve a Darwin award. They just have to remove themselves from the gene
pool. If they are unable to procreate, and have not yet made a
contribution, they can earn a Darwin award as well.

--
Mike

"Mike O'Malley" > writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "BTIZ" > writes:
> >
> > > > Sounds like a true candidate for a Darwin Award.
> >
> > > he would not qualify.. he's still alive and able to wreck more havoc...
> but
> > > maybe his next attempt at nomination he'll succeed... just hope he does
> not
> > > take his family with him..
> >
> > I guess that makes sense if you're just using "Darwin Award" as a
> > euphemism for "died". But the true meaning (and the definition of the
> > real award takes account of this) is about removing his contribution
> > to the gene pool, and by that definition wouldn't we have to hope he
> > *did* take his children, at least, with him?
>
> Well, if you really want to be tecnical about it, one doesn't have to die to
> recieve a Darwin award. They just have to remove themselves from the gene
> pool. If they are unable to procreate, and have not yet made a
> contribution, they can earn a Darwin award as well.

Yes, that's the "the definition of the real award takes account of
this" bit I mentioned. But really we should be hoping it happens to
his children, too. And I'm not comfortable going that far (bourgeois
squeamishness, I guess).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike O'Malley" > writes:
>
> > "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "BTIZ" > writes:
> > >
> > > > > Sounds like a true candidate for a Darwin Award.
> > >
> > > > he would not qualify.. he's still alive and able to wreck more
havoc...
> > but
> > > > maybe his next attempt at nomination he'll succeed... just hope he
does
> > not
> > > > take his family with him..
> > >
> > > I guess that makes sense if you're just using "Darwin Award" as a
> > > euphemism for "died". But the true meaning (and the definition of the
> > > real award takes account of this) is about removing his contribution
> > > to the gene pool, and by that definition wouldn't we have to hope he
> > > *did* take his children, at least, with him?
> >
> > Well, if you really want to be tecnical about it, one doesn't have to
die to
> > recieve a Darwin award. They just have to remove themselves from the
gene
> > pool. If they are unable to procreate, and have not yet made a
> > contribution, they can earn a Darwin award as well.
>
> Yes, that's the "the definition of the real award takes account of
> this" bit I mentioned. But really we should be hoping it happens to
> his children, too. And I'm not comfortable going that far (bourgeois
> squeamishness, I guess).

Sorry about that. Guess I should learn to read first, post second. You're
right about wishing ill on other's offspring as well. It does tend to leave
an bad taste in the mouth.