Re: OT: to timepix Ice age info
- From: timepixdc <timepixdc@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:45:09 -0500
In article <KIidnYmsG4Dg0NHeRVn-jg@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"John Wheaton" <wheatonjohn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> he "NEVER" implied New York was under ice.
> >
> > He didn't imply that it'd been under ice, he stated point blank that it
> > had been. Thanks for playing.
>
> If you want admissions under your word game you would have to admit that you
> were wrong with the "Liar" crap
Why? Evidently you're the idiot that got it wrong in the first place.
Viz.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Wheaton" <wheatonjohn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>> New York City has been under glacial ice
>>
>> That's a lie.
Unless you'd rather assume that you're stupid.
Which is it? Your call.
.
- References:
- Re: OT: to timepix Ice age info
- From: timepixdc
- Re: OT: to timepix Ice age info
- From: Mr Soul
- Re: OT: to timepix Ice age info
- From: timepixdc
- Re: OT: to timepix Ice age info
- From: timepixdc
- Re: OT: to timepix Ice age info
- From: John Wheaton
- Re: OT: to timepix Ice age info
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: to timepix Ice age info
- Next by Date: Re: OT: to timepix Ice age info
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: to timepix Ice age info
- Next by thread: Re: OT: to timepix Ice age info
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading