Re: OT: Steve Carroll's still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)
- From: Sandman <mr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:29:02 +0100
In article <C2262A95.7B368%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The fact he started a thread in response to Carroll's trolling is not
in question. Why do you pretend it is?
So new threads can now be considered "responses"? Ok, so why did you
compare this to Steve Carroll, whose new threads also could be
considered responses to a supposed trolling from you? What do you
think the difference is, Michael?
--
Sandman[.net]
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- OT: Steve Carroll's still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)
- From: Jesus
- Re: OT: Steve Carroll's still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)
- From: Sandman
- Re: OT: Steve Carroll's still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)
- From: Jesus
- Re: OT: Steve Carroll's still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)
- From: Sandman
- Re: OT: Steve Carroll's still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)
- From: Snit
- Re: OT: Steve Carroll's still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)
- From: Sandman
- Re: OT: Steve Carroll's still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)
- From: Snit
- OT: Steve Carroll's still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)
- Prev by Date: Re: Market Share vs Installed Base
- Next by Date: Re: Mac tablet builder comments on Mac OS X for generic hardware
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Steve Carroll's still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Steve Carroll's still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|