HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paf4@po.CWRU.Edu (Peter A. Fortman)
Subject: Adams' books
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 03:28:48 GMT


1. Can anyone tell me where I can find the Meaning of Liff. I have been racking my brains finding it.
2. About actors portraying Douglas Adams characters I definitely see Rowan
Atkinson as Ford. I also would like to see my favorite Monty Python actor who 
has mainly played these type of roles... Michael Palin to play Arthur. I can't picture Ford exactly but I am partial to the guy who plays the dj Chris Stevens on Northern Exposure as Zaphod. I think he as an actor would be a good match. Other than that
I think I'd like to see unknowns... good unknowns with great quality work put
in the whole production.
3. The 42 business has gotten me interested in the whole business of numerology
especially with 2's 3's and 7's which are 3 neat numbers. 2's because... 3's because of the neat things you can do with triangles and 7's because they're lucky.
Anyway. There was a big Carroll thing with 42 in Alice in Wonderland shtuff.
I was reading about the first 5 prime numbers besides 5...

4. I am new to this net and I love this. This is great!
-- 
-Pete Fortman
"Non Ego Vecors Sum Sed Dumtaxat Male Sanus"
        ^      ^       |     ^       ^
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg)
Subject: Re: 42
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:16:30 GMT

In article <BtwKJ5.A5J@acsu.buffalo.edu> v125p7c5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael Lamanna) writes:
>	Does anyone out there think that perhaps Douglas Adam's picked
>the number for no other reason than it just came to him in the spur of 
>the moment (no maybe you wouldn't).  The fact that he decided to make it 
>'what do you get when you multiply 6 times 9' may have some relevance, 
>since he maybe wanted to make the point that there is something terribly 
>wrong with the earth.  
>	The whole trilogy is full of things that point out the fact that 
>there is something wrong with the earth.  This could just be another 
>example.  

My personal opinion is this:  Stop trying to make sense of 6 x 9 = 42, because
of one relatively simple little fact.  Or series of facts.  Follow me people:

1.  The Golgafrincham (sp?) landed on earth, killed off the previous inhabit-
    ants, and because the human race.

2.  The Golgafrinchams were not part of earth's programming.

3.  Arthur Dent is a Golgafrincham.

4.  Thus, Arthur Dent (as well as Trillian) cannot be the holder of the correct
    Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything (or even the question).

Thus, the question, "What do you get when you multiply six by nine?" may be
the partial result of the earth's programming, but since a "CRC error", if you
will, crept into the program early on, there is very little chance that Dent's
Question has any relevance on the true Question.

...Paul

PS>  This is not to say that it's kinda fun to try to figure out what the
Question is, since we know the Answer is 42; it's just that Dent's Question
cannot be correct, so stop trying to "force a fit".


Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: paal-sb@hsr.no (Paal Steinar Berg)
Subject: Re: MOSTLY HARMLESS - FYI
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:19:54 GMT

YOU LUCKY BASTARD....


Paal
From: hermit@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Ron O'Dell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:15:46 GMT
Reply-To: keeper@deeptht.armory.com
Organization: The Pen
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


In article <92Aug26.121503edt.262@smoke.cs.toronto.edu> pedmonds@cs.toronto.edu ("Philip G. Edmonds") writes:
>In article <17fl0qINNpnu@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> keeper@deeptht.armory.com writes:
>>   The fact that 6 x 9 = 42 base 13 means nothing with regard to
>>   this series, because the Answer is written and spoken `forty-two'.
>You can't speak in letters or digits.  The great computer Deep Thought
>SAID `42' or `forty-two' which you can interpret any way you like.  

You can't say `42'.  `42' is merely two symbols which represent a concept.
Depending on the base numbering system, `42' can be any number.

`Forty-two', on the other hand, is not a representation, but the number itself.
Its definition is clear: Four tens and two.

So, in base thirteen, the answer to six times nine is represented by 42,
but that is not forty-two.  It is fifty-four -- five tens and four.

It would seem less messy if we had proper base-thirteen names for numbers
between those which are represented by the numerals `9' and `10'.  But we
don't.  Those two numbers you see represented there are, of course,
`nine' and `thirteen'.

Please, people, differentiate between the abstract concept of numerals
and the concrete concept of numbers.

Here I am, a writer and all, talking about numbers!  Heck, I had to get out
a calculator to work out six times nine!  Ah well ... the computation is
beyond me, but the concepts aren't.


I hereby grant permission for this article to be included in the FAQ list.

-- 
--- keeper@deeptht.armory.com (Ron O'Dell)   Do >not< mail hermit!
					     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: torsten@cwis.unomaha.edu (Torsten Wesley Adair)
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:54:50 GMT

pedmonds@cs.toronto.edu  writes:
> In article <17fl0qINNpnu@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> keeper@deeptht.armory.com writes:
> >
> >   The fact that 6 x 9 = 42 base 13 means nothing with regard to
> >   this series, because the Answer is written and spoken `forty-two'.
> 
> You can't speak in letters or digits.  The great computer Deep Thought
> SAID `42' or `forty-two' which you can interpret any way you like.  Ford
> and Arthur might have seen FORTY TWO written on the scrabble board but
> that's only because there are no digits in a scrabble set (the medium
> available was used).
> 
> Besides, it's the meaning that counts not the way you write or speak it.
> 
> >
> >    42 base 13 is >not< `forty-two'.
> 
> Is `six' times `nine' = `forty-two' (base `thirteen')?
> Of course it is.
> 
> Futilely,
> Phil.

What was spoken by the mice was a translation of what Deep Thought said in 
their native language.  What do foreign editions of the trilogy say, and has
anybody analyzed them?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: torsten@cwis.unomaha.edu (Torsten Wesley Adair)
Subject: Re: MOSTLY HARMLESS - FYI
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:02:42 GMT

ss@wpi.WPI.EDU  writes:
> >>>>> On 27 Aug 92 10:20:42 GMT, abw@dsbc.icl.co.uk (Andy Wardley) said:
> 
> 
> abw> Would you believe it?  I just happened to mention to my
> abw> girlfriend last night that DA is one of my fave authors.  She
> abw> only goes and tells me that she's got the manuscript for Mostly
> abw> Harmless sitting on her desk at work.  (she works for a
> abw> publisher, needless to say).
> 
> abw> "Gummpphhhh" said I.
> 
> abw> "Hmm" said she, "do you want to read it?".
> 
> abw> "Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes...."  (three hours later she promised
> abw> she would let me read it if I stopped shouting "YES" at the top
> abw> of my voice.)
> 
> abw> So feel free to be insanely jealous while I sit here smugly
> abw> planning where to take my girlfriend out for dinner.  :-)
> 
> abw> It's due out in the UK in mid October, the rest of the world I'm
> abw> not sure of, but you can expect me to keep you informed.....
> 
> We won't be jealous when you get your poor girlfriend fired for
> letting you read the manuscript before its release...  :)
> --
>                         Scott Streeter
>                         ss@wpi.wpi.edu

Although I live in Omaha, I know of some bookstores in New York City that sell
galley proofs (uncorrected printings) or review copies (so that newspaper 
reporters can read the book and release the review - read advertisement - when 
the book hits the stores.  They usually are paperbacks, and I think they sell
for under ten dollars (cost is covered by the publicity budget). 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: bmb1021@ultb.isc.rit.edu (B.M. Buck )
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
Originator: bmb1021@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:22:03 GMT

  As a datum point that the answer IS 42 (base ten), and not 42 (base
13), I remember seeing, written on a wall, in the television series the
string "101010", which is 42 (base ten) in base two.

  Later,
    BP (bmb1021@ultb.isc.rit.edu)


Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: Steve@klaatu.demon.co.uk (Steve Loft)
Distribution: world
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.14 $
Organization: None to speak of
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:21:48 +0000

I don't suppose anyone really wanted to hear this, but it's not actually
possible to make the sentence 'what do you get if you multiply six by
nine' from a standard scrabble set.  But then maybe Arthur's 'home made'
set wasn't standard....

Steve
|  Steve Loft                                  steve@klaatu.demon.co.uk   |
|  Doncaster,                                                             |
|  South Yorks.                                                           |
From: shimkus@athena.cs.uga.edu (Peter Gambit)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Subject: Re: Golgafrinchams
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:37:13 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

Of course, we're all forgetting that if the computer had had that extra five min
to sort out the rest of it, Arthur *might* have had the correct answer in his
brainwaves after all.

--Peter Gambit
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: flagg@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Young Zaphod
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:50:30 GMT

hmmm..... well is this comic relief book still in print?
and where? 
:) )

--
If it's glowing, don't eat it.
From: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Richard Beckett)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:54:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Young Zaphod
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Bristol, UK
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Reply-To: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com


In article <domalley.715346628@unix1.tcd.ie>, domalley@unix1.tcd.ie
(Slartibartfast            (alias Daniel O'Malley)) writes:

|> It is, and you are. It originally appeared in "The Utterly, Utterly Merry
|> Comic Relief Christmas Book", published in 1986 by God knows who.


	Does anybody know who published it, so that I can hot foot it
	to my nearest book shop, armed with all the required info ?
	I can't wait to get my grubby mits on a copy !

	Cheers,


		RIK


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rik O'Chet, Bristol, England.		
Email: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com		One's never alone with a Rubber Duck !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: flagg@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Jacobs)
Subject: Re: 42
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:11:17 GMT

ctalbott@mksol.dseg.ti.com (christopher j talbott) writes:
: INTERESTING? IN-TER-EST-ING???  Give me a break...I've been following this
: newsgroup since May (you know...the SLOW season) and I've heard every silly
: theory about 6x9=42 that there is!!  It's gone past interesting, it's to
: point of inanity (the state or quality of being inane).  Unfortunately, I
: think all the "current" readers (who've been here more than a week) already
: know that we've beaten this subject to death 100 times...it's the ones who
: "discover" that 6 (base 13) multiplied by 9 (base 13) yields 42 (base 13)
: and then feel the need to ask (as if to verify their own cleverness), "has
: anyone else discovered this?"
: 
: There is something fundamentally wrong with the Universe...and it may be me.
: 
: NOT!
: 
: Sorry about the tirade folks, but we're whipping the fossils of a long deceased
: horse with this 6x9=42 thing.
: 
: -Chris
: -- 
: //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
: /// Chris Talbott     ///////// ctalbott@mksol.dseg.ti.com ///////
: /// Software Designer ///////// chris@ews7.dseg.ti.com     ///////
: //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
: /// "There are very few personal problems that cannot be        //
: ///  solved through a suitable application of high explosives." //
: //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Exactly! I don't know about the rest of the people reading this
group, but ever since I started reading it the great question was:
why does 6*9=42? and more importantly, can we MAKE it equal 42?
now I'm sure there's enough theories out there to last us the rest
of our lives.

well, theres my 2 cents for today. 
---
If it's glowing, don't eat it.
From: aproden@ac.dal.ca (Andrew P. Rodenhiser)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:10:56 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <marc.714911571@vieta.math.uni-sb.de>, marc@vieta.math.uni-sb.de (Marc Conrad) writes:
> bjornts@ii.uib.no (Bjoern Tore Sund) writes:
> 
>>I always assumed that there was no "deeper meaning" to 6*9=42 apart
>>from what Arthur said (at least in the TV series), when he had
>>just drawn the scrabble-pieces out of the bag: "Oh. I always knew 
>>there was something fundamentally wrong about the Universe." I sort
>>of assumed that this was all the deeper meaning that DA intended.
>>I might have been wrong though... :-(
> 
> No, that 6*9=42 (13) is not more than an accident. If you take two
> arbitrary numbers, multiply them, then the probability, that there exist 
> a N , so that the product of these numbers is 42 in Base N, is about  0.25 !!

Is there a simple formula to find this probability, or did you perform
(infinity)^2 multiplications?

Actually, I would expect this to be infinitely improbable :)
> 
> For instance: 10 * 9 = 42 (22) 
>               1234 * 56789 = 42 (17519406)
> Marc
> --
>      \   /                     | Marc Conrad, Universitaet des Saarlandes 
>       \ Luxemburg              | marc@math.uni-sb.de  phone: 0681 302-2297
> France \|   Germany            | these opinions are not necessarily these   
>         \x <---- you are here! | of the SIMATH-group (and maybe even not mine).
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew Paul Rodenhiser   |  You are the only censor.
Department of Chemistry  |  If you don't like what I'm saying,
Dalhousie University     |  you have the choice.
Halifax, N.S. Canada     |  You can turn me off!
APRODEN@ac.dal.ca        |   --Alice Cooper, Lay Down & Die, Goodbye.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: hermit@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Ron O'Dell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:05:14 GMT
Reply-To: keeper@deeptht.armory.com
Organization: The Pen
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu




Gordon Bennett, here we go again.

   The fact that 6 x 9 = 42 base 13 means nothing with regard to
   this series, because the Answer is written and spoken `forty-two'.

    42 base 13 is >not< `forty-two'.

Bloody hell!


Sorry ...

-- 
--- keeper@deeptht.armory.com (Ron O'Dell)   Do >not< mail hermit!
					     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: torsten@cwis.unomaha.edu (Torsten Wesley Adair)
Subject: Further permutations of Adams' work
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:08:41 GMT

According to DC Comics Summer Preview, and the Comics Buyer's Guide, both DC 
and Innovation Comics will be publishing adaptations of the Hitchhiker's Guide 
to the Galaxy.

Innovation is known for adapting a variety of novels (Terry Pratchett, Anne
Rice) as well as television shows (Quantam Leap, Dark Shadows) into comic 
books.

Ask your friendly neighborhood comic dealer for more information.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: time@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim Evans)
Subject: Re: Young Zaphod                        
Cc: time@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: time@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:26:49 +0000

> 
>In article <domalley.715346628@unix1.tcd.ie>, domalley@unix1.tcd.ie 
>(Slartibartfast            (alias Daniel O'Malley)) writes: 
> 
>|> It is, and you are. It originally appeared in "The Utterly, Utterly Merry 
>|> Comic Relief Christmas Book", published in 1986 by God knows who. 
> 
> 
>        Does anybody know who published it, so that I can hot foot it 
>        to my nearest book shop, armed with all the required info ? 
>        I can't wait to get my grubby mits on a copy ! 
> 
>        Cheers, 
> 
> 
>                RIK 
 
"The Utterly Utterly Merry Comic Relief Christmas Book" was published by 
William Collins, Son & Co. Ltd, ISBM 0-00-637128-0, whether it is still 
available I do not Know. 
 
       TimE 
 
time@cix.compulink.co.uk 

>>>MATRIX version  1.20g
From: v120qldp@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (PATRICK FERREL)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Subject: Re: Young Zaphod
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:12:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug27.140638.25102@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Virginia.A.Reed@dartmouth.edu (Virginia A. Reed) writes...
>>Actually, if I'm not wrong, there are only six:  Zaphod, Zaphod's
>>great-grandfather, Yooden Vranx, Zarniwoop, Roosta and someone whom I can't
>>remember.
> 
>I belive that the seventh is Slartibartfast.

How is Slartibartfast supposed to know?  He slept for five million years.  He
probably wouldn't have a clue if you talked about Improbability Physics.


Patrick A. Ferrel - Scholar. Helpless romantic. Modem geek.  | Disaster Area
v120qldp@ubvms.buffalo.edu  | WWIVnet 1@7659 | IceNET 1@7659 | (716)683-6657
From: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Richard Beckett)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:17:19 GMT
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Bristol, UK
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Reply-To: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com


In article <1992Aug31.202203.28925@ultb.isc.rit.edu>,
bmb1021@ultb.isc.rit.edu (B.M. Buck ) writes:
|>   As a datum point that the answer IS 42 (base ten), and not 42 (base
|> 13), I remember seeing, written on a wall, in the television series the
|> string "101010", which is 42 (base ten) in base two.


	Yeh, I've got this feeling that there's some mention of the string
	101010 somewhere in the books, with reference to someone pondering
	the ultimate question.
	There's bound to be someone out there who remembers it though.

	P.S. Does anyone know who does the voice of the book in the T.V.
	series ?

	Cheers,


		RIK


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rik O'Chet, Bristol, England.		
Email: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com		One's never alone with a Rubber Duck !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Subject: Re: Golgafrinchams
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:26:00
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

1> the pattern printed in Arthur's brainwaves and seen there by
1> Marvin, give the question `What do you get if you multiply
1> six by nine'. It ain't surprising that you don't get
1> fourty-two, because the program was all screwed up, so it
1> gave the wrong answer.
2> My guess (and it is only a guess) is that DNA meant us to
2> assume that the real Question was in fact `What do you get
2> if you multiply six by seven'.

=-= So who says that's the wrong answer?  You're all being
digitocentric.  The equation works just fine if you use
base 13!
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: flagg@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Jacobs)
Subject: Young Zaphod
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:55:31 GMT

Does anyone know if young zaphod is available by itself and not
part of the trilogy?
and if it is, where can I find such a book in the US? 
--
If it's glowing, don't eat it.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: ss@wpi.WPI.EDU (Scott Streeter)
Subject: Re: MOSTLY HARMLESS - FYI
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:39:47 GMT

>>>>> On 27 Aug 92 10:20:42 GMT, abw@dsbc.icl.co.uk (Andy Wardley) said:


abw> Would you believe it?  I just happened to mention to my
abw> girlfriend last night that DA is one of my fave authors.  She
abw> only goes and tells me that she's got the manuscript for Mostly
abw> Harmless sitting on her desk at work.  (she works for a
abw> publisher, needless to say).

abw> "Gummpphhhh" said I.

abw> "Hmm" said she, "do you want to read it?".

abw> "Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes...."  (three hours later she promised
abw> she would let me read it if I stopped shouting "YES" at the top
abw> of my voice.)

abw> So feel free to be insanely jealous while I sit here smugly
abw> planning where to take my girlfriend out for dinner.  :-)

abw> It's due out in the UK in mid October, the rest of the world I'm
abw> not sure of, but you can expect me to keep you informed.....

We won't be jealous when you get your poor girlfriend fired for
letting you read the manuscript before its release...  :)
--
                        Scott Streeter
                        ss@wpi.wpi.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: loon@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (LOON M J)
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Undergrads).
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:45:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.181004.642@ctr.columbia.edu> daniel@csgi62.dcs.leeds.ac.uk (D N Crow) writes:

>In article <1992Aug30.171140.29445@athena.cs.uga.edu>, shimkus@athena.cs.uga.edu (Peter Gambit) writes:
>> 
>> Sorry, this is slightly off-subject, but I cant resist.  I came in this morning and logged on to my acct to read my news.  As i scaned down the list of groups
>> I was amused to notice that there were 42 unread messages in alt.fan.douglas-adams!
>> 
>> Peter Gambit

>I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but it is exactly 42 minutes
>since anyone posted about this. Spooky, huh?

>Slightly off-subject, you may not know this, but 6*9 really is 42, if you
>use base 13!!! Spooky, huh?

>Also, I've heard that Douglas Adams (he's an author, you know), is writing
>another book. Its in his Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. You may
>have heard of it. I think it is going to be the 42nd. book in the series.
>Perhaps we could have a discussion about this? Did you know that this is the
>only trilogy with 42 books in it? And that books 5-41 were never actually
>written? Spooky, huh?

>-- 
>Dan Crow
>daniel@scs.leeds.ac.uk

This is wholly and wholeheartedly unclear. Seeing that you brought up the 
subject of base other than the default 10, what base does 42 refer to? 
I'll have to assume its base 2762. So then the new book is, for normal 
people, the 11050th(10) book in the series, with books 5(2762) to 41(2762) 
never having been written. This refers to books 5(10) to 11049(10) non-
existing. Is this what you meant? 

Am I correct? (I'm more used to thinking in base 2913 so the conversion may 
have been faulty)
 
--
Marc Loon <loon@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za>
Student No: 8807871/X (just thought you'd want to know)
University of the Witwatersrand
Johannesburg

Conversation: a voice competition between two people
in which the one taking a breath is called the listener.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Reply-To: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com



	Is it possible to get The More than Complete Hitchhiker's Guide
	in England ?


	Cheers,


		RIK


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rik O'Chet, Bristol, England.		
Email: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com		One's never alone with a Rubber Duck !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams