XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: youmustbejoking@lan.invalid   
      
   On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 09:52:45 -0800, Paul S. Person wrote:   
      
   > On 26 Feb 2017 03:56:19 GMT, Dan C  wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:36:03 -0800, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:13:42 +0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>In alt.fan.tolkien Dan C  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> And the pit is not bottomless.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>The way it's described,it is functionally so.   
   >>>>No mortal could survive trying to reach the bottom,   
   >>>>or find a way back up.   
   >>>   
   >>> Now, here we agree: to all intents and purposes, it is bottomless.   
   >>   
   >>Which changes nothing, in regards to the engineering task of crossing   
   >>the gap.   
   >   
   > Oh, I don't know.   
   >   
   > If it were only, say, five feet deep, that would seem to simplify the   
   > problem.   
      
   Well, that's a pretty silly exaggeration.   
      
   So, once again, back to the point.  Would it be any easier to cross if it   
   were only 10,000 meters deep, rather than "bottomless"?   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".   
   "Bother!" said Pooh, as the Facehugger impregnated him.   
   Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/   
   Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)