Heard on the radio

[Roy Smith]

This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.

Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says here
in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".

Aircraft: That's right

ATC: Why would I want to know that?

Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.

ATC: Oh, OK.

It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous on
the air.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.
>
> Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says here
> in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".
>
> Aircraft: That's right
>
> ATC: Why would I want to know that?
>
> Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.
>
> ATC: Oh, OK.
>
> It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous on
> the air.
>

It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept a
descent greater than 1000 fpm?

[Dale]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:


>
> It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
> controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept a
> descent greater than 1000 fpm?

I'm wondering why he couldn't do more than 1000fpm. I know of dogs that
skydive...that's around 10000fpm descent.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[David Cartwright]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>> Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says here
> It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
> controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept a
> descent greater than 1000 fpm?

What breed of dog was it? Cos everybody knows that anything smaller than a
labrador has a restricted descent capability because their front legs are
too short to push the column very far forward ...

D.

[David Lesher]

"David Cartwright" > writes:

>> It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
>> controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept a
>> descent greater than 1000 fpm?

>What breed of dog was it? Cos everybody knows that anything smaller than a
>labrador has a restricted descent capability because their front legs are
>too short to push the column very far forward ...

The legendary Ed Gauss had a few words on dogs:

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation/msg/b38c55002a8fa3b6?dmode=source>

I alas can't find his post about the dog that panicked when Ed
throttled back; and jumped into the owner's lap --- keeping Ed from
pulling up when he most needed to....

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.
>>
>>Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says here
>>in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".
>>
>>Aircraft: That's right
>>
>>ATC: Why would I want to know that?
>>
>>Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.
>>
>>ATC: Oh, OK.
>>
>>It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous on
>>the air.
>>
>
>
> It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
> controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept a
> descent greater than 1000 fpm?
>
>

Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the
remarks section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."

The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have
a dog onboard.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.
>>>
>>>Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says here
>>>in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".
>>>
>>>Aircraft: That's right
>>>
>>>ATC: Why would I want to know that?
>>>
>>>Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.
>>>
>>>ATC: Oh, OK.
>>>
>>>It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous on
>>>the air.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
>> controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept
>> a descent greater than 1000 fpm?
>
> Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the remarks
> section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."
>
> The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have a
> dog onboard.
>

I don't think so. From an operational standpoint "unable descent of
greater than 1000 FPM" tells the controller the pilot is unable to descend
at a rate greater than 1000 ft/min, "dog aboard" tells the controller
nothing.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the
> remarks section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."
>
> The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have
> a dog onboard.

How many characters fit in the remarks field on the flight strip? It
would be a hoot if it got cut off at "unable descent" :-)

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.
>>>>
>>>>Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says here
>>>>in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".
>>>>
>>>>Aircraft: That's right
>>>>
>>>>ATC: Why would I want to know that?
>>>>
>>>>Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.
>>>>
>>>>ATC: Oh, OK.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous on
>>>>the air.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
>>>controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept
>>>a descent greater than 1000 fpm?
>>
>>Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the remarks
>>section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."
>>
>>The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have a
>>dog onboard.
>>
>
>
> I don't think so. From an operational standpoint "unable descent of
> greater than 1000 FPM" tells the controller the pilot is unable to descend
> at a rate greater than 1000 ft/min, "dog aboard" tells the controller
> nothing.
>
>

It tells the controller that the pilot has a dog aboard. :-)

Matt

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.
> >>>>
> >>>>Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says here
> >>>>in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".
> >>>>
> >>>>Aircraft: That's right
> >>>>
> >>>>ATC: Why would I want to know that?
> >>>>
> >>>>Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.
> >>>>
> >>>>ATC: Oh, OK.
> >>>>
> >>>>It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous on
> >>>>the air.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
> >>>controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept
> >>>a descent greater than 1000 fpm?
> >>
> >>Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the remarks
> >>section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."
> >>
> >>The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have a
> >>dog onboard.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't think so. From an operational standpoint "unable descent of
> > greater than 1000 FPM" tells the controller the pilot is unable to descend
> > at a rate greater than 1000 ft/min, "dog aboard" tells the controller
> > nothing.
> >
> >
>
> It tells the controller that the pilot has a dog aboard. :-)
>
> Matt

Well, it tells the controller that there's a dog aboard. It doesn't
actually say anything about there being a pilot too.

[Chris]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says
>> >>>>here
>> >>>>in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Aircraft: That's right
>> >>>>
>> >>>>ATC: Why would I want to know that?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>ATC: Oh, OK.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous
>> >>>>on
>> >>>>the air.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
>> >>>controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't
>> >>>accept
>> >>>a descent greater than 1000 fpm?
>> >>
>> >>Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the
>> >>remarks
>> >>section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."
>> >>
>> >>The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have
>> >>a
>> >>dog onboard.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't think so. From an operational standpoint "unable descent of
>> > greater than 1000 FPM" tells the controller the pilot is unable to
>> > descend
>> > at a rate greater than 1000 ft/min, "dog aboard" tells the controller
>> > nothing.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It tells the controller that the pilot has a dog aboard. :-)
>>
>> Matt
>
> Well, it tells the controller that there's a dog aboard. It doesn't
> actually say anything about there being a pilot too.

He could have been disparaging about his wife too.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.
>>>>>
>>>>>Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says
>>>>>here
>>>>>in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".
>>>>>
>>>>>Aircraft: That's right
>>>>>
>>>>>ATC: Why would I want to know that?
>>>>>
>>>>>Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.
>>>>>
>>>>>ATC: Oh, OK.
>>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous on
>>>>>the air.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
>>>>controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept
>>>>a descent greater than 1000 fpm?
>>>
>>>Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the remarks
>>>section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."
>>>
>>>The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have a
>>>dog onboard.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think so. From an operational standpoint "unable descent of
>> greater than 1000 FPM" tells the controller the pilot is unable to
>> descend at a rate greater than 1000 ft/min, "dog aboard" tells the
>> controller nothing.
>
> It tells the controller that the pilot has a dog aboard. :-)
>

Which means what, from an operational standpoint?

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says
>>>>>>here
>>>>>>in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Aircraft: That's right
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ATC: Why would I want to know that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ATC: Oh, OK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous on
>>>>>>the air.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
>>>>>controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept
>>>>>a descent greater than 1000 fpm?
>>>>
>>>>Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the remarks
>>>>section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."
>>>>
>>>>The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have a
>>>>dog onboard.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think so. From an operational standpoint "unable descent of
>>>greater than 1000 FPM" tells the controller the pilot is unable to
>>>descend at a rate greater than 1000 ft/min, "dog aboard" tells the
>>>controller nothing.
>>
>>It tells the controller that the pilot has a dog aboard. :-)
>>
>
>
> Which means what, from an operational standpoint?
>
>

It means that even though he only has one soul on board, in the event of
a crash, the SAR folks would find two "bodies." :-)

Matt

[Jim Knoyle]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >
> >> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says
> >>>>>here
> >>>>>in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Aircraft: That's right
> >>>>>
> >>>>>ATC: Why would I want to know that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>ATC: Oh, OK.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous
on
> >>>>>the air.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
> >>>>controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't
accept
> >>>>a descent greater than 1000 fpm?
> >>>
> >>>Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the
remarks
> >>>section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."
> >>>
> >>>The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have
a
> >>>dog onboard.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't think so. From an operational standpoint "unable descent of
> >> greater than 1000 FPM" tells the controller the pilot is unable to
> >> descend at a rate greater than 1000 ft/min, "dog aboard" tells the
> >> controller nothing.
> >
> > It tells the controller that the pilot has a dog aboard. :-)
> >
>
> Which means what, from an operational standpoint?
>
>
If he tries to do anything other than re-boot the computer,
the dog is supposed to bite him!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says
>>>>>>>here
>>>>>>>in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Aircraft: That's right
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ATC: Why would I want to know that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ATC: Oh, OK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous
>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>the air.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
>>>>>>controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't
>>>>>>accept a descent greater than 1000 fpm?
>>>>>
>>>>>Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the
>>>>>remarks section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."
>>>>>
>>>>>The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have
>>>>>a dog onboard.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't think so. From an operational standpoint "unable descent of
>>>>greater than 1000 FPM" tells the controller the pilot is unable to
>>>>descend at a rate greater than 1000 ft/min, "dog aboard" tells the
>>>>controller nothing.
>>>
>>>It tells the controller that the pilot has a dog aboard. :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Which means what, from an operational standpoint?
>
> It means that even though he only has one soul on board, in the event of a
> crash, the SAR folks would find two "bodies." :-)
>

We're talking about remarks, not souls on board.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says
>> >>>>>here
>> >>>>>in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Aircraft: That's right
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>ATC: Why would I want to know that?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>ATC: Oh, OK.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous
> on
>> >>>>>the air.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
>> >>>>controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't
> accept
>> >>>>a descent greater than 1000 fpm?
>> >>>
>> >>>Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the
> remarks
>> >>>section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."
>> >>>
>> >>>The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I
>> >>>have
> a
>> >>>dog onboard.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I don't think so. From an operational standpoint "unable descent of
>> >> greater than 1000 FPM" tells the controller the pilot is unable to
>> >> descend at a rate greater than 1000 ft/min, "dog aboard" tells the
>> >> controller nothing.
>> >
>> > It tells the controller that the pilot has a dog aboard. :-)
>> >
>>
>> Which means what, from an operational standpoint?
>>
>>
> If he tries to do anything other than re-boot the computer,
> the dog is supposed to bite him!
>

How is that important to the controller?

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says
>>>>>>>>here
>>>>>>>>in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Aircraft: That's right
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>ATC: Why would I want to know that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>ATC: Oh, OK.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous
>>
>>on
>>
>>>>>>>>the air.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
>>>>>>>controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't
>>
>>accept
>>
>>>>>>>a descent greater than 1000 fpm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the
>>
>>remarks
>>
>>>>>>section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I
>>>>>>have
>>
>>a
>>
>>>>>>dog onboard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think so. From an operational standpoint "unable descent of
>>>>>greater than 1000 FPM" tells the controller the pilot is unable to
>>>>>descend at a rate greater than 1000 ft/min, "dog aboard" tells the
>>>>>controller nothing.
>>>>
>>>>It tells the controller that the pilot has a dog aboard. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Which means what, from an operational standpoint?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If he tries to do anything other than re-boot the computer,
>>the dog is supposed to bite him!
>>
>
>
> How is that important to the controller?
>
>

Steve, if we all send you a donation, will you go buy a sense of humor?


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> How many characters fit in the remarks field on the flight strip? It
> would be a hoot if it got cut off at "unable descent" :-)
>

Enroute strips display more characters than terminal strips, I don't recall
the numbers. When the remark exceeds the allotted space on the strip the
remark is cut off and three asterisks are displayed at the end to indicate
it. The controller can then enter a flight plan readout request for the
entire remark.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steve, if we all send you a donation, will you go buy a sense of humor?
>

Yes, I will. Send me a substantial donation and I will buy a sense of
humor.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Steve, if we all send you a donation, will you go buy a sense of humor?
>>
>
>
> Yes, I will. Send me a substantial donation and I will buy a sense of
> humor.
>
>

I'm not sure we can afford what you would need. :-)

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Steve, if we all send you a donation, will you go buy a sense of humor?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I will. Send me a substantial donation and I will buy a sense of
>> humor.
>
> I'm not sure we can afford what you would need. :-)
>

You must try. You must have the courage of your convictions. You must
encourage everyone to contribute. It is the only decent thing to do.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Steve, if we all send you a donation, will you go buy a sense of humor?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I will. Send me a substantial donation and I will buy a sense of
>>>humor.
>>
>>I'm not sure we can afford what you would need. :-)
>>
>
>
> You must try. You must have the courage of your convictions. You must
> encourage everyone to contribute. It is the only decent thing to do.
>
>

Hey, it is working already!

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Steve, if we all send you a donation, will you go buy a sense of humor?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I will. Send me a substantial donation and I will buy a sense of
>>>>humor.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure we can afford what you would need. :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> You must try. You must have the courage of your convictions. You must
>> encourage everyone to contribute. It is the only decent thing to do.
>
> Hey, it is working already!
>

Good. How much have you collected so far?

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Steve, if we all send you a donation, will you go buy a sense of humor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, I will. Send me a substantial donation and I will buy a sense of
>>>>>humor.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure we can afford what you would need. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You must try. You must have the courage of your convictions. You must
>>>encourage everyone to contribute. It is the only decent thing to do.
>>
>>Hey, it is working already!
>>
>
>
> Good. How much have you collected so far?
>
>

I was going to ask you the same question?