In article ae485@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andrew Jeanes) writes: >In a previous article, kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) says: >>I am pleased to declare the election null and void. I also declare you >>to be NOT ALLOWED. > >I've always wondered, is it possible to declare something null, but not >void? Void but not null? Would Kibo be quite so pleased if he could only >declare it one thing or the other? > >Andrew "I always come to a full *and* complete stop at stop signs, unless >I'm in a hurry in which case I just come to a complete stop" Jeanes I order you to cease and desist from this nonsense immediately. I'm told that these strange redundancies in the language arise from the time of the Norman invasion, when the uptight French landlords had to give out orders in both Angle and Saxon to the Jutes who under- stood neither, but were shacking up with two skimpily dressed women to save rent and increase Nielsen ratings, with hilarious complications ensuing. Speaking of Nielsens, what should I do about my Rotisserie Nielsen team now that the Simpsons are moving to Sunday night? Should I trade Seaquest DSV for Seinfeld, or should I try to pick up Mad About You for cheap now that they're only going up against Martin? -- ted frank