Re: It is his blog, but why would Bystander remove OnTop evidence and published facts/articles?

On Thu, 28 May 2009 10:16:56 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
<webmanager@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 28, 6:12 pm, Mike Ross <m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 09:57:49 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst



<webmana...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 28, 5:55 pm, Special Care <Special.Car...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 28 May, 17:34, Webmanager_CritEst <webmana...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Nice to have an answer, Bystander?

WMwww.critest.com

---------------------------------

Your words are imprecise and convey no definite meaning to readers in
a public place, while referring to an apparently private matter, with
insufficient data for the reader to make a meaningful evaluation. [-Mr
Spock]

Did I ask you?

You asked the entire flaming group. And the answer to your question is, I have
no flaming idea. I know Bystander has a blog. And as with any blog, it's his
trainset - his rules.

Mike
--http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

"Nice to have an answer, Bystander? "

What does that say?

Comment by all means.

I refer you to the thread subject, set by you: "It is his blog, but why would
Bystander remove OnTop evidence and published facts/articles?"

That appears to be a general question posed to the group. If you were *only*
addressing Bystander you would have flaming emailed him!

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
.

Relevant Pages