Da: Ben Morse
Data: Sab 14 Ago 1999 00:00
Subject: the desire/despair arguement
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

here is the official line. In between Season of Mists, a game of you (and maybe brief Lives), Delirium turns to Despair and says that they have mourned for her before, but not her, as no-one was her, so it was someone else. This is never fully explained. However, as the rest of the family are there (this is season of mists, I'm fairly sure. I must check), dream and delirium look at desire.
This would explain:
A)why they are twins,
B)why despair is the opposite of desire. (think about it, one leads to the other, and so Despair is simply what Desire once was.....sad in a way)

err...thats prolly not much help. but it's what I menat. sorry.

Da: Reg142
Data: Sab 14 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 15:32:24 +0100 "Ben Morse" <ben.mo...@virgin.net>
wrote:

> here is the official line. In between Season of Mists, a game of you (and
> maybe brief Lives), Delirium turns to Despair and says that they have
> mourned for her before, but not her, as no-one was her, so it was someone
> else. This is never fully explained. However, as the rest of the family are
> there (this is season of mists, I'm fairly sure. I must check), dream and
> delirium look at desire.

Actually What Del said was: "You know something? We came here for you, a long time ago, when you died. Well it wasn't here, and that wasn't you. But we did anyway."
She makes the comment in front of the Necropolis Litharge. And no-one looks at Desire, least of all Dream since the scene occurs at the start of The Wake.

> This would explain:
> A)why they are twins,
> B)why despair is the opposite of desire. (think about it, one leads to the
> other, and so despair is simply what Desire once was.....sad in a way)

Um, I think that B) rally explains A) and whileeveryone is free to speculate about this idea, there is absolutely no evidence for it in the text.

Reg

Da: Luna Vudu
Data: Sab 14 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

Reg wrote:
>What Del said was: "You know something? We came here for you,
>a long time ago, when you died. Well it wasn't here, and that wasn't
>you. But we did anyway."
>She makes the comment in front of the Necropolis Litharge. And no-one
>looks at Desire, least of all Dream since the scene occurs at the start
>of The Wake.

And in the Necropolis story in Worlds' End there is a reference to the destruction of the first Necropolis, isn't there? <runs to check>

Yes, in fact, Destruction appears in one of the stories and says that Destiny revoked the charter of the first Necropolis because they had lost respect for their purpose.

At any rate, this is the second Necropolis and the second Despair. But that doesn't give any evidence that part of Desire became the second Despair. In fact, there are bits of evidence against that.

For example, in The Wake, when Despair is talking about how she felt when she became Despair: "She [the first Despair] had been such a great lady, and I was simply *me*..." This suggests that this aspect of Despair was a human before becoming an Endless, as Daniel was before becoming Dream.

beginningly, luna

Da: Jinx213
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

Reg wrote:

>Ben Morse wrote:

<snips the official line>

> Actually What Del said was: "You know something? We came here for you,
> a long time ago, when you died. Well it wasn't here, and that wasn't
> you. But we did anyway."
> She makes the comment in front of the Necropolis Litharge. And no-one
> looks at Desire, least of all Dream since the scene occurs at the start
> of The Wake.

> > This would explain:
> > A)why they are twins,
> > B)why despair is the opposite of desire. (think about it, one leads to the
> > other, and so despair is simply what Desire once was.....sad in a way)

> Um, I think that B) rally explains A) and whileeveryone is free to
> speculate about this idea, there is absolutely no evidence for it in
> the text.

Ok,...I have always gotten the idea that they are twins. From what I have been told there is no evidence in what is written, however this is the impression that I got as I read Sandman. Sometimes the vague ideas that you get from what isn't said, is what you are supposed to get.

Jinx213
who doesn't beleive in official unless it's out of Neil's mouth or pen
however

Da: Morningstar
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

Ben Morse wrote in message <7p3u8h$7a...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>here is the official line. In between Season of Mists, a game of you (and
>maybe brief Lives), Delirium turns to Despair and says that they have
>mourned for her before, but not her, as no-one was her, so it was someone
>else. This is never fully explained. However, as the rest of the family are
>there (this is season of mists, I'm fairly sure. I must check), dream and
>delirium look at desire.
>This would explain:
>A)why they are twins,
>B)why despair is the opposite of desire. (think about it, one leads to the
>other, and so despair is simply what Desire once was.....sad in a way)

>err...thats prolly not much help. but it's what I menat. sorry.

My advice would be to not start off by saying you have the "Official line" then get vague on the details. I am in the "Despair's current incarnation is an aspect of Desire (i.e. they are twins) but the original Despair was not" camp, but there are those who are firmly convinced of the opposite so you need all your ammunition ready if you're going to get into this ;)

Morningstar

Da: Reg142
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 02:51:38 GMT "Jinx213" <jinx...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Ok,...I have always gotten the idea that they are twins. From what I
> have been told there is no evidence in what is written, however this is
> the impression that I got as I read Sandman. Sometimes the vague ideas
> that you get from what isn't said, is what you are supposed to get.

No, they are twins. That is definitely in there in numerous places.
What I meant was that there is no evidence that the second Despair was an aspect of Desire before she became Despair.

I repeat my assertion that I think everyone should be free to speculate and form their own opinion, as long as they don't engage in eddzism, passing off opinions as fact.

Reg

Da: Morningstar
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

Luna Vudu wrote in message <19990814170115.05898.00000...@ng-cd1.aol.com>...

>Reg wrote:
>>What Del said was: "You know something? We came here for you,
>>a long time ago, when you died. Well it wasn't here, and that wasn't
>>you. But we did anyway."
>>She makes the comment in front of the Necropolis Litharge. And no-one
>>looks at Desire, least of all Dream since the scene occurs at the start
>>of The Wake.

>And in the Necropolis story in Worlds' End there is a reference to the
>destruction of the first Necropolis, isn't there? <runs to check>

>Yes, in fact, Destruction appears in one of the stories and says that Destiny
>revoked the charter of the first Necropolis because they had lost respect for
>their purpose.

>At any rate, this is the second Necropolis and the second Despair. But that
>doesn't give any evidence that part of Desire became the second Despair. In
>fact, there are bits of evidence against that.

>For example, in The Wake, when Despair is talking about how she felt when she
>became Despair: "She [the first Despair] had been such a great lady, and I was
>simply *me*..." This suggests that this aspect of Despair was a human before
>becoming an Endless, as Daniel was before becoming Dream.

Hmm, I just said I would buy into this again, but.... Prince of Lies and all that I guess. My view is that line does not prove the current Despair is an aspect of the previous Despair rather than Desire, simply that whoever/whatever she was, she does not consider herself to be a "grand lady".

Actually, now I look at it, Despair is referring to both herself and the previous Despair in the past tense suggesting (to me at least) she is referring to them existing at the same time. Now I know a lot of things said in the Kindly Ones and the Wake suggest that the different incarnations of the Endless really exist at the same time although we only perceive one aspect, but the way this is said (Despair's quote) actually sounds to me like a confirmation that she isn't (strictly speaking) an incarnation of the previous Desire, she is something/someone else.

My key quote for supporting the Desire angle is ... oh, somewhere. Just spent 15 minutes looking and couldn't find it. Basically someone (probably Delirium) says the change was hard. And the response (probably from Dream or Destiny) is that it was hard for everyone, it was the first time one of us had to take on an aspect of the other.

*sigh* I knew I shouldn't have gotten into this when I can't even find my point.

Morningstar

Da: Reg142
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 13:23:29 +1000 "Morningstar"
<lucifer.truename.mornings...@theobvious.zzn.com> wrote:

> Hmm, I just said I would buy into this again, but.... Prince of Lies and all
> that I guess. My view is that line does not prove the current Despair is an
> aspect of the previous Despair rather than Desire, simply that
> whoever/whatever she was, she does not consider herself to be a "grand
> lady".

Quite right, but Daniel might have similar feelings about Morpheus. We all have trouble filling the shoes of our predecessors.

> Actually, now I look at it, Despair is referring to both herself and the
> previous Despair in the past tense suggesting (to me at least) she is
> referring to them existing at the same time. Now I know a lot of things
> said in the Kindly Ones and the Wake suggest that the different incarnations
> of the Endless really exist at the same time although we only perceive one
> aspect, but the way this is said (Despair's quote) actually sounds to me
> like a confirmation that she isn't (strictly speaking) an incarnation of the
> previous Desire, she is something/someone else.

I'm can't see it myself, but there's no hard evidence to the contrary. I guess it's just a matter of interpretation.

> My key quote for supporting the Desire angle is ... oh, somewhere. Just
> spent 15 minutes looking and couldn't find it. Basically someone (probably
> Delirium) says the change was hard. And the response (probably from Dream
> or Destiny) is that it was hard for everyone, it was the first time one of
> us had to take on an aspect of the other.

Bugger! I can't find it either, but I think the quote is actually"...the first time one of us had to take on another aspect." There's a big difference.

Reg

Da: Eddie Colton
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

Okay, without resorting to an "eddism"...

To me, the embodiment of desire and the embodiment of despair have always been and will always be twins. The aspects/incarnations are irrelevant.They were born at the same time. That's official, isn't it?

Twins = siblings born at the same time.
Twins do not = organ/aspect donors.

No matter how much of Desire is in Despair or vice versa, it would not make them twins unless they were A- identical, or B- born at the same time. That seems like common sense to me, but it could just be lunacy. It's so hard to spot, when you're a lunatic yourself.

I always thought Neil made them twins because of how often this happens-

"I desire a donut. Oh despair, someone else ate it."

(These are just my opinions, if that wasn't already obvious.)

-E. Colton

Da: Dylan Verheu
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 04:08:06 GMT, "Reg142" <gosbo...@ansonic.com.au>
wrote:

>Bugger! I can't find it either, but I think the quote is actually
>"...the first time one of us had to take on another aspect." There's a
>big difference.

My memory fails me here, but this sounds more like a Delight -> Delirium reference.

D

Da: Dylan Verheul
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

On 14 Aug 1999 21:01:15 GMT, lunav...@aol.com (Luna Vudu) wrote:

>For example, in The Wake, when Despair is talking about how she felt when she
>became Despair: "She [the first Despair] had been such a great lady, and I was
>simply *me*..." This suggests that this aspect of Despair was a human before
>becoming an Endless, as Daniel was before becoming Dream.

Not necessarily human. Mortal, perhaps, although Despair may also have been a faerie or a member of some other immortal race.

D

Da: Dylan Verheul
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 02:51:38 GMT, "Jinx213" <jinx...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Ok,...I have always gotten the idea that they are twins. From what I
>have been told there is no evidence in what is written, however this is
>the impression that I got as I read Sandman. Sometimes the vague ideas
>that you get from what isn't said, is what you are supposed to get.

They are twins. It is in Seasons of Mists IIRC (now runs to check and quote) - ah, there it is (I think I copied this on The Wake, in the Gallery):

"Despair, Desire's sister and twin ..."

Sandman #21, page 8, or page 8 of the first issue in Seasons of Mists.

>who doesn't beleive in official unless it's out of Neil's mouth or pen
>however

It's official, then.

D (hates his CD writer cos it wont work)

Da: Dylan Verheul
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 12:55:27 +1000, "Morningstar"

<lucifer.truename.mornings...@theobvious.zzn.com> wrote:
>My advice would be to not start off by saying you have the "Official line"
>then get vague on the details. I am in the "Despair's current incarnation
>is an aspect of Desire (i.e. they are twins) but the original Despair was
>not" camp, but there are those who are firmly convinced of the opposite so
>you need all your ammunition ready if you're going to get into this ;)

Okay, here is my ammo. Prepare to be convinced ;-)

I think they are twins because they are. Just as the Endless are brothers and sisters because they are. Daniel/Dream is still Death's brother, is still Dream of the Endless. No matter how many times Desire and/or Despair would "die" and reincarnate as another aspect of themselves, or whatever you want to call it, they are always twins.

Think about it (this is by heart, not quoted):

Destiny was there first, as the universe started.
Death was there as the first living thing emerged.
Dream was there shortly after, as the living started to dream.
Destruction came next, supposedly after art and destruction had become possible.

Now Despair and Desire.

If you cannot despair because you want something but you cannot have it, can you truly desire it? If you cannot desire something, can you truly despair because you cannot have it.

That's why they are twins. They came into existence at the exact same moment.

And that is why they share the same theme song, "I want you" by Elvis Costello. But that's another story.

D

Da: Ben Morse
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

mAybe I dont have the *official line*. maybe I was very tired that day and didnt have my DAMN BOOKS BACK from my friend John to justify the arguement.

And maybe I'm wrong.

But I'm not. I'm still tired, though, if that's any consolation.

:)
(will be adding Hob and Matthew today to the site. Promise.)

Da: Luna Vudu
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

Morningstar wrote:
>Hmm, I just said I would buy into this again, but.... Prince of Lies and all
>that I guess.

:::friendly hug:::Welcome back! :)

>My view is that line does not prove the current Despair is an
>aspect of the previous Despair rather than Desire

I don't think it proves it, I simply think it implies that this Despair was a human being, as the new Dream was Daniel.

>but the way this is said (Despair's quote) actually sounds to me
>like a confirmation that she isn't (strictly speaking) an incarnation of the
>previous Desire, she is something/someone else.

That's what I said. :)

>And the response (probably from Dream
>or Destiny) is that it was hard for everyone, it was the first time one of
>us had to take on an aspect of the other.

Hey! I remember this argument! You said that that's what the quote said, and I said it was much more vague than that, but I can't find it either right now, so...

>*sigh* I knew I shouldn't have gotten into this when I can't even find my
>point.

But you love it! ;)

playfully, luna

Da: Luna Vudu
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

Dylan wrote:
>Not necessarily human. Mortal, perhaps, although Despair may also have
>been a faerie or a member of some other immortal race.

Or an alien. Or a frog. Details. What I meant was, it suggests that she wasn't already an endless.

Da: Dylan Verheul
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

On 15 Aug 1999 15:13:26 GMT, lunav...@aol.com (Luna Vudu) wrote:

>Dylan wrote:
>>Not necessarily human. Mortal, perhaps, although Despair may also have
>>been a faerie or a member of some other immortal race.

>Or an alien. Or a frog. Details. What I meant was, it suggests that she
>wasn't already an endless.

Details, indeed. I didn't mean to sound quite so ... nitpickingly? In Dutch we would call it "mierenneuken" which literally translates to"antfucking" (yes, that is antfucking as in having sexual intercourse with rather small insects).

The idea that Despair used to be a frog somehow sounds nice. She might also have been a rat.

D

Da: Globalhead
Data: Dom 15 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

In article <37b6da4d.24069...@news.demon.nl> , d...@dyve.net (DylanVerheul) wrote:

>Details, indeed. I didn't mean to sound quite so ... nitpickingly? In
>Dutch we would call it "mierenneuken" which literally translates to
>"antfucking" (yes, that is antfucking as in having sexual intercourse
>with rather small insects).

>The idea that Despair used to be a frog somehow sounds nice. She might
>also have been a rat.

Heh.

If you take a good look at Despair she looks a little like a washed up porn star.

Just a thought.

Larry --

Da: Eddie Colton
Data: Lun 16 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

>If you take a good look at Despair she looks a little like a washed up porn
>star.

wow. that's pretty washed up. unless she ruled the fetish section.

-E. Colton

Da: Katie Schwarz
Data: Lun 16 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

Reg142 <gosbo...@ansonic.com.au> wrote:

><lucifer.truename.mornings...@theobvious.zzn.com> wrote:

>> My key quote for supporting the Desire angle is ... oh, somewhere. Just
>> spent 15 minutes looking and couldn't find it. Basically someone (probably
>> Delirium) says the change was hard. And the response (probably from Dream
>> or Destiny) is that it was hard for everyone, it was the first time one of
>> us had to take on an aspect of the other.

>Bugger! I can't find it either, but I think the quote is actually
>"...the first time one of us had to take on another aspect." There's a
>big difference.

Brief Lives 8, page 6, panel 5

DESTRUCTION: Poor Despair. I remember when first she assumed the mantle of Despair; when first she became Desire's twin.
DELIRIUM: I don't think it was um. Easy for her.
DREAM: It was not easy for any of us. It was the only time one of the Endless had been destroyed, that another aspect of one of us had reassumed the position: we all had much to adjust to.

[Note: *re*assumed the position. The new Despair was an aspect of Despair.]

Next panel:
DESTRUCTION: Yes. That was why I eventually chose the course of action that I did. After all, it wouldn't have done for another version of me to have been dumped into the same mess all over again...

--
Katie Schwarz

Da: Christine Marie
Data: Lun 16 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

Dylan Verheul wrote:

<snip>
> Details, indeed. I didn't mean to sound quite so ... nitpickingly? In
> Dutch we would call it "mierenneuken" which literally translates to
> "antfucking" (yes, that is antfucking as in having sexual intercourse
> with rather small insects).

What a great word. I mean it. What a truly amazing word. I love it.

Chris

Da: Reg142
Data: Mar 17 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

On 16 Aug 1999 23:33:02 GMT k...@socrates.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) wrote:

> Reg142 <gosbo...@ansonic.com.au> wrote:

> ><lucifer.truename.mornings...@theobvious.zzn.com> wrote:

> >> My key quote for supporting the Desire angle is ... oh, somewhere. Just
> >> spent 15 minutes looking and couldn't find it. Basically someone (probably
> >> Delirium) says the change was hard. And the response (probably from Dream
> >> or Destiny) is that it was hard for everyone, it was the first time one of
> >> us had to take on an aspect of the other.

> >Bugger! I can't find it either, but I think the quote is actually
> >"...the first time one of us had to take on another aspect." There's a
> >big difference.

> Brief Lives 8, page 6, panel 5

Thanks Katie, I'm glad someone cleared that up. I have to say that it wasn't exactly the way I remembered the quote and concede that it could beused as support for Morningstar's argument.

I don't have my copy of brief lives at the moment, having loaned it to a friend who then thoughtfully loaned it to someone else. Now I'm all for spreading the word of Neil, but I want my book back dammit.

Reg(who thinks he may have to explain the meaning of boomerang to his friend again)

Da: SorinRok
Data: Mar 17 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

Christine Marie <chrismm.nos...@aracnet.com> wrote in message news:7patqa$hht$1@spitting-spider.aracnet.com...

> Dylan Verheul wrote:

> <snip>
> > Details, indeed. I didn't mean to sound quite so ... nitpickingly? In
> > Dutch we would call it "mierenneuken" which literally translates to
> > "antfucking" (yes, that is antfucking as in having sexual intercourse
> > with rather small insects).

> What a great word. I mean it. What a truly amazing word. I love it.

And, a synonym for "mierenneuken" is "muggenziften", which translates as"gnatsieving" ("gnat-sieving"?)

Chris

Da: Dylan Verheul
Data: Mar 17 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:13:30 +0200, "SorinRoke" <chr...@satl.com> wrote:

8< mierenneuken ("antfucking") = getting into tiny details >8

>And, a synonym for "mierenneuken" is "muggenziften", which translates as
>"gnatsieving" ("gnat-sieving"?)

We must have the coolest language in the world ;-)

You know, AFNG could stand for antfucking Neil Gaiman - well, it could!

D

Da: super karate monkey death car
Data: Mar 17 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

In article <37b9ad8c.7819...@news.demon.nl>, d...@dyve.net wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:13:30 +0200, "SorinRoke" <chr...@satl.com>
>wrote:

>8< mierenneuken ("antfucking") = getting into tiny details >8

>>And, a synonym for "mierenneuken" is "muggenziften", which translates as
>>"gnatsieving" ("gnat-sieving"?)

>We must have the coolest language in the world ;-)

>You know, AFNG could stand for antfucking Neil Gaiman - well, it
>could!

Well, I don't know about the ants, but the rest of that idea sounds wonderful.

*ahem*

Sorry, I'm feeling rather on the obsessive side about Neil today.

|_|_| Kali Nichta |_|_|

Da: Sorcha
Data: Mar 17 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

Dylan Verheul wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 12:55:27 +1000, "Morningstar"
> <lucifer.truename.mornings...@theobvious.zzn.com> wrote:

> >My advice would be to not start off by saying you have the "Official line"
> >then get vague on the details. I am in the "Despair's current incarnation
> >is an aspect of Desire (i.e. they are twins) but the original Despair was
> >not" camp, but there are those who are firmly convinced of the opposite so
> >you need all your ammunition ready if you're going to get into this ;)

> Okay, here is my ammo. Prepare to be convinced ;-)

> I think they are twins because they are. Just as the Endless are
> brothers and sisters because they are. Daniel/Dream is still Death's
> brother, is still Dream of the Endless. No matter how many times
> Desire and/or Despair would "die" and reincarnate as another aspect of
> themselves, or whatever you want to call it, they are always twins.

<hack>

Hmmn.
Where did we get the idea that Desire and Despair are *not* twins from?
It's not an idea that is exactly breaking news, nevermind the fact that it is explicitly stated in Season of Mists

Da: Dylan Verheul
Data: Mar 17 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:08:23 +0100, Sorcha

<sorcha_obr...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>Where did we get the idea that Desire and Despair are *not* twins from?
>It's not an idea that is exactly breaking news, nevermind the fact that
>it is explicitly stated in Season of Mists.

Yes, they ARE twins, that is what I said. It is in SoM, indeed.

D

Da: Morgan Thomas
Data: Mar 17 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

Dylan Verheul wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:08:23 +0100, Sorcha
> <sorcha_obr...@esatclear.ie> wrote:

> >Where did we get the idea that Desire and Despair are *not* twins from?
> >It's not an idea that is exactly breaking news, nevermind the fact that
> >it is explicitly stated in Season of Mists.

> Yes, they ARE twins, that is what I said. It is in SoM, indeed.

I think by this point we can probably safely consider the argument over. It seems to me that everyone is repeating the same points more and more testilly.

Da: Sorcha
Data: Mar 17 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

Morgan Thomas wrote:

> Dylan Verheul wrote:

> > On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:08:23 +0100, Sorcha
> > <sorcha_obr...@esatclear.ie> wrote:

> > >Where did we get the idea that Desire and Despair are *not* twins from?
> > >It's not an idea that is exactly breaking news, nevermind the fact that
> > >it is explicitly stated in Season of Mists.

> > Yes, they ARE twins, that is what I said. It is in SoM, indeed.

> I think by this point we can probably safely consider the argument over. It
> seems to me that everyone is repeating the same points more and more
> testilly.

Fair enough. I do have the (somewhat lame) excuse of coming back from a weeks holidays and replying to old posts :P But yes.

Sorcha

Da: SorinRoke
Data: Mer 18 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

Dylan Verheul <dvn...@dyve.net> wrote in message news:37b9ad8c.7819549@news.demon.nl...

> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:13:30 +0200, "SorinRoke" <chr...@satl.com>
> wrote:

> 8< mierenneuken ("antfucking") = getting into tiny details >8

> >And, a synonym for "mierenneuken" is "muggenziften", which translates as
> >"gnatsieving" ("gnat-sieving"?)

> We must have the coolest language in the world ;-)

Definately :)

Chris

Da: MarkWCats
Data: Mer 18 Ago 1999 00:00
Gruppi: alt.fan.neil-gaiman

/me looks at the thread.

/me reads the thread.

/me runs away screaming.

* You touch my soul with what you do.

--
MarkWCats / Mark Dunne. (and CWN.sig for taglines. Its opinion is not mine)