Re: Death in Greenwich Park - verdict
- From: Rob Morley <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:22:34 -0000
In article <memo.20080315184001.3528D@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Terry
tenzin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
Semantics. You supplied a confection of rumour & conjecture withoutHe posted what he knew, what he had heard and what he thought about it.
which the few facts you provided would not have implied the connection
you were careful to state was left up to the reader. You didn't serve
the meal but you laid the table and invited the hard of thinking to
partake. All in all an unedifying spectacle.
He made it quite clear which was which. Are we not to discuss things in
case someone misunderstands our meaning or intent? Do you apply similar
logic to other aspects of your life, or do you only wring your hands
when there's political correctness to be inflicted upon others?
.
- References:
- Re: Death in Greenwich Park - verdict
- From: Tom Crispin
- Re: Death in Greenwich Park - verdict
- From: Terry
- Re: Death in Greenwich Park - verdict
- Prev by Date: Re: Citroen C3 Pluriel and bikes
- Next by Date: Re: Citroen C3 Pluriel and bikes
- Previous by thread: Re: Death in Greenwich Park - verdict
- Next by thread: Re: Death in Greenwich Park - verdict
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading