Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: "Ray" <rayblee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Dec 2005 22:30:56 -0800
JC Martin wrote:
> Ray wrote:
> > In your mind was Sco's work with MMW 'pandering'?
>
> Missed that.
>
> Yes, somewhat. Both MMW and Scofield watered down the content a bit.
What exactly do you mean by "watered down the content" in this context?
And why in your mind does that necessarily translate to pandering?
I'm not trying to grill you - you're position really is foreign to me
and I don't understand it.
Ray
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: JC Martin
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- References:
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: JC Martin
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: Ray
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: JC Martin
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: Ray
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: JC Martin
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: Ray
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: JC Martin
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: Ray
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: JC Martin
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: Ray
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: JC Martin
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: Ray
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: JC Martin
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: Ray
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: JC Martin
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: Ray
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- From: JC Martin
- Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- Prev by Date: Re: Cream!!!!!
- Next by Date: Re: New Years?
- Previous by thread: Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- Next by thread: Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|