 | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
All of this is beyond the scope of Richie’s initial question, I think, but it
makes for interesting discussion regardless.
|
Just a point of order, Dave: I didn’t include a question in my initial post.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
All of this is beyond the scope of Richie’s initial question, I think, but
it makes for interesting discussion regardless.
|
Just a point of order, Dave: I didn’t include a question in my initial post.
|
But you brought their judgment into question. Semantics here, IMO
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
All of this is beyond the scope of Richie’s initial question, I think, but
it makes for interesting discussion regardless.
|
Just a point of order, Dave: I didn’t include a question in my initial post.
|
But you brought their judgment into question. Semantics here, IMO
JOHN
|
And god forbid that anyone gets accused of being anti-Semantic.
a
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allister McLaren wrote:
| |
And god forbid that anyone gets accused of being anti-Semantic.
|
Well, it looks like the same antics to me.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
All of this is beyond the scope of Richie’s initial question, I think, but
it makes for interesting discussion regardless.
|
Just a point of order, Dave: I didn’t include a question in my initial post.
|
But you brought their judgment into question. Semantics here, IMO
JOHN
|
Right.
Semantics, that must be it.
Even so, even if that was what Dave was meaning, it would be nice for him to
have the used the phrase “Richie’s comment” or “Richie’s post”. It would save
you the hassle of having to explain this stuff to me, if nothing else.
Thanks.
Richie Dulin
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
All of this is beyond the scope of Richie’s initial question, I think, but
it makes for interesting discussion regardless.
|
Just a point of order, Dave: I didn’t include a question in my initial post.
|
You keep out of this. I’ll decide what you did and didn’t say!
;)
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
All of this is beyond the scope of Richie’s initial question, I think, but
it makes for interesting discussion regardless.
|
Just a point of order, Dave: I didn’t include a question in my initial post.
|
You keep out of this. I’ll decide what you did and didn’t say!
;)
|
Fair enough.
Actually, I find it a lot more convincing as points of view go than the
semantics one. ;)
Cheers
Richie Dulin
| | | | | | |
