Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 2 May 2010 07:31:36 -0700 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Yes, well that's why I said number 2 was "technically" the same
answer as number 1. But the intent of the question was clear, I
thought. Of course with Kevin, one can never be quite sure of
anything in that way. Oh the deviousness of it all.
At 07:22 AM 5/2/2010, you wrote:
>I'm curious. As the 1853 letter to his mother was published in the
>Hannibal journal that same fall, why doesn't that count as the
>earliest published use?
>
>--- On Sun, 5/2/10, Robert Hirst <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > From: Robert Hirst <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: that makes it two wrong
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Date: Sunday, May 2, 2010, 10:09 AM
> > Barb Schmidt points out that the 1
> > November 1856 Snodgrass letter
> > beats the "River Intelligence."
> >
> > Kerry Driscoll points out that Letter IV of "Letters from
> > the Earth"
> > (October-November 1909) beats the letter to Dorothy Quick.
> >
> > Now why did I stay up all night to get my answers?
> >
|
|
|