Re: Smoke two...
- From: Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:03:41 -0700
In article <Xns9A88DAC4A5CEFgoddardbenetscapenet@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Obtuse or not, I'm being sincere. I can go only on what Misc
said, and he said "inalienable" and "uninfringable" meant the
same thing
This is, like, the 10th time you've made that accusation. I'm going to
go ahead & deny ever having said any such thing. Please provide a
citation.
If you manage to find something that you can twist into sounding like I
may have implied such a thing (heck, maybe I even outright said it!), it
was a mistaken, a mis-speak, and I apologise for all the confusion it
has wrought upon this discussion.
(Sheesh!)
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Tom S.
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: Smoke two...
- References:
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Tom S.
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Mickey
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: Smoke two...
- Prev by Date: Re: Smoke two...
- Next by Date: Re: Smoke two...
- Previous by thread: Re: Smoke two...
- Next by thread: Re: Smoke two...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|