The subject of this post probably should have been "joke attributions
explained."  :-)  It started on the 57th (that's FIFTY SEVEN <G>) post
in this thread, not counting 9 from which it morphed:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:12:24 -0400, Krazy Kiwi Viv <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:02:41 -0400, Reef Fish wrote:
>>DarLING Viv, you've been w**king TOOOOOOOO hard, which was why you
>>had uncharacteristically misattributed some of the quotes below. :-)
>>I guess those ">>>>>>>>>>>>>" made it hard to count too ...

So, for THIS definitively correct attributions to ALL, I am going
to cut out all extraneous >>'s.  This is WHY. :-)  I said in my
follow-up to Viv:

>No.  Mika wrote that to Kuty:
 >>>>>>> Of course, there are things men place too much emphasis on
 >>>>>>> as well, but that's a different topic, one that even real
 >>>>>>> men rarely feel comfortable discussing.

See, since I was SURE of the sources of the TWO KEY LINES of the JOKE
from recollection (about Mika's 7 ft hose, FOLLOWED by Lee's 6 ft
one), and that Carl clipped that quote IMMEDIATELY before Mika's,
without any attribution to anybody, so I naturally assumed (from
the CONTEXT) that it was Mika talking.

> No, No DarLING Bob :-) It twas indeed Lee. Actually on Mon, 26
> Jun 2000 17:45:40 -0400 his posting was to Sherry

You're absolutely correct!  I stand corrected on this MISattribution
of mine, the first one in about 5 years.  :-)  Which only goes to
show that NO ONE should trust one's memory on QUOTES ...

In THIS case, the reason I didn't bother to check THAT one, and
only relied on the context was what I said at the end:

RF> At any rate.  Everyone got the joke.  It didn't matter who said
RF> what to whom.  My Humor Quotient remain intact when I questioned
RF> Carl's DIR analysis.  And we all live happily hereafter watching
RF> boobs.  :)

The key lines in that JOKE (and whom it whizzed by) were, as we NOW
know (and in this instance, I supposed there is some justification
in saying "WHO CARES?"  :-)), were written by Mika, Lee, and Carl,
in that ORDER.


As for the COROLLARY mystery

>No, Mika continued to Kuty.  :-)
 >
 >>>>>No wonder it was so easy to covert you to the 7ft hose.

to which Viv said,

> And I dont know how Kuty popped in at this stage because I read this
> post from Mika on Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:19:24 -0400

But *I* was recalling from a DIFFERENT one (in perfect context):

At 00:52 27/06/00 -0400, Michael Doelle wrote:

>By 2002 Kuty will have joined "The Cult" of the long hosers.
>I'll start working on him real soon

THAT's how Kuty got in, through the opened back door.   :-)


Joke attribution mystery completely solved.  I stand corrected on
the one misattribution:

>No.  Mika wrote that to Kuty:

and I have already whipped myself with Giovanni's wet noodle at least
a hundred times because it began to feel good after the 57th.  <BWG>
<I made the boo boo on the 57th post in the thread>

As for Viv's closing remark,

> Sorry for short-changing you Carl!
> Now Im off to check out some nice *buns* during my lunchbreak.
> If you can have a boob-fest I can have the other ;-)

All I'll say is:  Viv, you short-changed ALL MEN here.  Men have
BOTH boob-fest AND bun-fest (as is well-known to be labeled "T & A",
and you wimmin folks have to remain "second class netizens" in
having only bun-fest on men.

FUC 5.3, 6.2 ... Wot am I starting here?  FUC 6.5.

For those uninitiated in FUC (Frequently Uttered Complaints), see

http://www.ivydene1.demon.co.uk/nedfuc.htm

-- Bob.