At 10:30 PM 7/31/96 -0700, you wrote:
(Major snipping for brevity)  I try to look them up in 101, but
>>>am finding it difficult...
>>        The two places I was referring to are answer #62 says She was
>>seriously damaged, answer #66 goes into a several sentence long thing about
>>how She was near the end of her lifespan, and decided to regenerate because
>>Ryo-ohki #2 would be more evolved. (I am paraphrasing to avoid quoting).
>>        Now, I don't doubt that you can maintain that the second bit is
>>merely an elaboration: But I do doubt that these answers were connected in
>>the minds of the answerers.  If the whole thing is laid out, it really
>>doesn't make one picture.
>
>Greg, you should really try to read more carefully.  Yes, question 62 does
>mention that Ryoohki was badly damaged after the battle with Ryuoh.  But
>does question 66 ask?  "What happened to Ryoohki in the battle with Kagato?"
>
>See, they are complete unrelated.  Ryoohki was hardly hurt during the battle
>with Kagato (Souja), NOT the same case with Ryuoh.  There's nothing wrong
>with the English translation (I have it, too).  I supposed you were confused
>because it still mentions Ryuoh.  It does state that the Ryuoh was beneath
>Ryoohki, I guess this caused you to think of how when they were crashing to
>earth, Ryoohki "pinned down" Ryuoh beneath her.  Think carefully now--Where
>was Ryuoh when Ryoohki was used to attack Kagato?  It had to be right
>beneath Ryoohki, because Tenchi transported to it and used its Light Hawk
>Wings to attack Kagato.  If the Ryuoh was still in the lake, and not right
>beneath Ryoohki, it would be pointless for Tenchi to go to the bride of the
>Ryuoh.
>
>When the Souja's energy blast nearly killed Tenchi, Ryoohki was hardly hurt,
>because the blast basically destroyed the Ryuoh, and a bit of the lower
>parts of Ryoohki; this, to Ryoohki, was not a whole lot of damage.
>
>(The previous paragraph would be a rough summary of the answer to question
>66 in 101).
        
        You are having more trouble with your copy of the file than you
think you are, the above only paraphrases about half of answer # 66.  We
will get nowhere with this if we aren't looking at the same material.  I
assure you I am not confused about what it says, and it has about 5
sentences of elaboration about Ryo-ohki #1's "decision" to regenerate.  If
you havn't got that we are working from different texts.

>
>>        We could go on like this indefinately, and you could probably
>>explain adequately every problem I could raise, but you would be shooting
>>yourself in the foot.  
>
>But so far it looks more like you're shooting yourself in the foot...  ;p

        Considering you've admitted to a major problem with the conceptual
structure of the text.

>
>>Actually, almost all the time, the people
>>quoting the 101 Facts have shown intelegent restraint in not trying to push
>>the myriad exotic details on us. 
>
>I do so in my own postings because I know there are people out there who
>don't think 101 is valid.
>
>>        BTW: The bootleg file copies that were passed to me were formatted
>>on some system which includes code that is illegal in MS Windows. Hence, no
>>Windows program will display them. I have to look at it in DOS edit, which
>>will tolerate illegal code,(though how any human can make use of what is
>>displayed in edit to represent hex and binary code is beyond me).  I wonder,
>>since Glenn is evidently unable to search his text, if this is a common
>>problem with the file?
>
>Are you sure your copy wasn't just in HTML codes?  I had a problem searching
>for the specifics you mentioned because 101 questions is a lot of ground to
>cover, and I didn't do a text search from within an editor, so all I could
>do was to skim through the questions.

        Give me a break!  First, HTML is Windows compatable(it is all ascii
code, after all! Second I have checked closely, there is lots of illegal
binary code in the formatting areas of the file. In DOS EDIT display, non
text code includes a lot of those flaky IBM character set things like spades
and hearts. 

>
>In your mentioning of the Ryoohki inconsistency, I have noticed question 62,
>but was unable to find an instance where it mentioned that the first gen
>Ryoohki was not really hurt during the battle with Ryuoh,

This is backwards from what I said, 62 asserts that Ryo-ohki was badly damaged.

> although I have
>noticed question 66, I dismissed it immediately because it was talking about
>a different battle, and the Ryoohki involved was also different.
>
        Are you admitting you didn't check it out?  From your paraphrase,
one would think you did, and don't have the same text I do.

>
>Glenn Wang <brief@ix.netcom.com>  http://www.netcom.com/~brief/


                                Greg M.