Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- From: Jeff <yourimageunreels@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 20:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 13, 1:01 am, "Sean Carroll" <seanc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jeff" <yourimageunre...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
"Sean Carroll" <seanc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I promise I will check my e-mail at some point within the next 48 hours.Can you get a yahoo account? I have yahoo mail..and have no problems
I
just hate having to deal with the hotmail interface.
with it? I don't want to cause a problem with your hotmail account.
No, no, you don't understand.
No, Sean, I guess I don't understand.
It's the entire concept of web-based e-mail
that I'm uncomfortable with. Unfortunately, it's what I have to use until I
secure myself a good real POP account, or whatever it's called.
E-mail was not meant to be read on the web. It was meant to be like Usenet
messages in a newsreader. When I finally get back to having that kind of
e-mail, I will start using it much more often.
I'm puzzled cause I've never used a newsreader, nor the saw the reason
to. I post through google and can read my yahoo e-mail just fine.
Ok, I'll hold off on the music.
--Seanhttp://spclsd223.livejournal.com
House: He did, however, get hit by a bullet. Just mentioning.
Cameron: He was shot?
House: No, somebody threw it at him.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- From: RichL
- Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- From: RichL
- Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- From: Sean Carroll
- Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- From: Ehtue
- Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- From: Sean Carroll
- Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- From: Jeff
- Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- From: Sean Carroll
- Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- From: Jeff
- Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- From: Sean Carroll
- Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- From: Jeff
- Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- From: Sean Carroll
- Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- From: Jeff
- Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- From: Sean Carroll
- Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- Prev by Date: Re: Fab Faux
- Next by Date: Re: Fab Faux
- Previous by thread: Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- Next by thread: Re: Why is it that 1962-1970 seems like ages when 2000-2008 seems like Five Bloody minutes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|