> > > You misunderstand me completely. My original message, the one at the beginning of this thread, was the shortest ever posted to this forum. My reply to that had the longest title. That was the entirety of my point. You, at this point, have tied both of my records, but broken neither of them. Therefore, they still stand.
> >
> > But Paul managed both in the same message, thus fulfilling the promise of the title and carrying the record. You had the record at the time of your first message, but lost it by your second (which increased the title length but also the message length). Only a single character reply to this thread could then take the record.
> >
> > Not that it's a matter of life and death of course.
> >
> > enile
>
> If I were to post a message to this thread that had *no* content whatsoever--i.e., was completely blank--would that qualify as the new record for shortest message (and tie for longest title)?

Sort of... except that you can't do it. It doesn't allow us to post empty messages.

In other news, there was no clause stating that the longest title and the shortest message content would occur together. I never said that. I merely said that I would post the shortest message - which I did - and the message with the longest title, which I then did. No one said anything about doing it at the same time. I grant that Paul posted something that ties both records and does both at once, but still breaks neither.

Dar "Never say die" ien