Having shown to my satisfaction that there is no interest whatsoever in either paleontology or Nathaniel Hawthorne, what new depth shall I plumb as a potential source of all that is dull? I haven't considered it thoroughly yet, but don't be surprised to hear from Father G-L again.
This page contains a single entry by Steven Riddle published on July 6, 2004 5:25 PM.
A Nathaniel Hawthorne Story was the previous entry in this blog.
Prayer Requests 7 July 2004--Wednesday 14th Week Ordinary Time is the next entry in this blog.
Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.
Hey, I had better things to do over the weekend than surf all the blogs. Glad to see that you had fun!
I wouldn't go that far as to saying there is no interest in paleontology or Nathaniel Hawthorne. I am interested in both and in fact have always been interested in paleontology. Some things just don't illicit comments, but that does not mean they are not worthwhile to post.
I'll echo what Jeff said.
Hi All,
That was, of course a joke. In fact, I've decided upon much worse. Later today--Hans Urs von Balthasar. Then you'll be glad to comment on mammoth shark teeth and Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Although just as a matter of curioustiy, why in the world WOULD anyone be interested in Nathaniel Hawthorne. I know why I am, but then, I don't swim in the same stream as the majority of people I know. Is there something about Nathaniel that I ought to be more interested in?
Look out for good old HUvB later today.
shalom,
Steven
Although just as a matter of curioustiy, why in the world WOULD anyone be interested in Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Oh, I think the parents of saints are naturally interesting subjects.
Paleontology in general, fine, but paleoicthyology? Dead fish? Sorry, but after a day they start to smell.
Cool shark teeth, though. Just tell me that they were found on some poor australopithecene and I will be happy.