Re: Does the issue of nuclear weapons need to be addressed?
- From: John <john@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:43:04 +0100
David wrote:
You are anti-conversation because your thinking is too rigid and
highly irritating to your correspondent.
To which correspondent do you refer? As to my being "anti-conversation"
that may well be your view, but then others seem quite content to
converse, though the medium of usenet, with me. You will have to accept
that conversation is a two way interaction and you have to engage the
interest of those with whom you wish to converse.
--
John
"Who is John Galt."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Does the issue of nuclear weapons need to be addressed?
- From: David
- Re: Does the issue of nuclear weapons need to be addressed?
- From: David
- Re: Does the issue of nuclear weapons need to be addressed?
- From: Engineer
- Re: Does the issue of nuclear weapons need to be addressed?
- From: David
- Re: Does the issue of nuclear weapons need to be addressed?
- From: John
- Re: Does the issue of nuclear weapons need to be addressed?
- From: David
- Re: Does the issue of nuclear weapons need to be addressed?
- From: John
- Re: Does the issue of nuclear weapons need to be addressed?
- From: David
- Does the issue of nuclear weapons need to be addressed?
- Prev by Date: *SRQ* (was Re: [SRQ] Suggestion to avoid the sporge)
- Next by Date: Re: Does the issue of nuclear weapons need to be addressed?
- Previous by thread: Re: Does the issue of nuclear weapons need to be addressed?
- Next by thread: Re: Does the issue of nuclear weapons need to be addressed?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|