Subject:
|
Re: Color Change background
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.color
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 May 2004 18:26:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
794 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.color, Tim Courtney wrote:
| |
In lugnet.color, Richard W. Schamus wrote:
| |
Ok Folks,
It’s been a long time since I’ve been flamed (quick check to my behind to
see if 3rd deg burns have sufficiently healed over... yup), so I guess it’s
time to get my fanny fried again.
Jake, thank you for the explaination. I at least (though I can see that
there are many others as well) appreciate that you have come forward with
this information. It was inciteful and detailed, and to some degree helpful
(in that we shouldn’t have to speculate how these things are decided anymore
-now we “know”).
|
Rich, I have to pick on you, buddy ;-)
snip
[1] vs. insightful, or lending insight to ...
|
Yep, typo. Making messages without spell/grammer ccheckk will do that to you.
(Yes, I know. It’s intentional.)
Have Fun!
C-ya!
Rich
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Color Change background
|
| (...) Rich, I have to pick on you, buddy ;-) Above, you say 'inciteful [1].' I can't tell if that was a genuine typo, or if you meant it as a reference to how any official posts about the color issue incite harsh posts against the company and the (...) (21 years ago, 13-May-04, to lugnet.color, FTX)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
