Re: Much ado about a Lady bird.
- From: Philip H Hart <auldphart@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Apr 2007 03:15:40 -0700
On Apr 18, 11:51 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On 18 Apr 2007 13:18:53 -0700, Philip H Hart <auldph...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Apr 18, 7:19 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
To keep duff scientists in jobs.
Your use of the adjective "duff" presupposes that you regard some
scientists as "genuine". Please name two or so of the latter type who
are currently working and publishing, so that we may know if you
understand the difference.
I won't name any in case they turn out to be duff.
OK. So now we know you don't understand the difference. Can we expect
you, therefore, to cease referring to 'duff' scientists in future?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Much ado about a Lady bird.
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Much ado about a Lady bird.
- References:
- Re: Much ado about a Lady bird.
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Much ado about a Lady bird.
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Much ado about a Lady bird.
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Much ado about a Lady bird.
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Much ado about a Lady bird.
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Much ado about a Lady bird.
- From: Philip H Hart
- Re: Much ado about a Lady bird.
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Much ado about a Lady bird.
- Prev by Date: Re: A letter I agree with.
- Next by Date: Re: Much ado about a Lady bird.
- Previous by thread: Re: Much ado about a Lady bird.
- Next by thread: Re: Much ado about a Lady bird.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|