 | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message news:384F3A51.4FCDDF...faq.com... (...) scans" (...) TLC (...) not for (...) SHOW us (...) Tom, I mean absolutely no offense here (and I've already brought this up in response to another (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Only if you make it an issue. Huw never even mentioned having that info. (...) I'm disturbed that you are disturbed about such a silly marketing slogan. Did you ever think TLC was NOT a for-profit company? (...) Sorry, I guess I should have (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Agreed, so we're still waiting for the first slap? It probably isn't a perfect analogy, it wasn't meant to be - the original point was that silence isn't always evidence. (...) Agreed, I don't think what Huw did was more wrong than that. What (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) By the same token, I could ask you to prove that they aren't secret. But with the limited information that we have that would be fruitless. We are in .debate, so I see nothing wrong with trying to discuss this intelligently. My view is that (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospa...yahoo.com> wrote in message news:FMG645.9Ct@lugnet.com... (...) in (...) Oh, Please...No more stretches OK? It's not that sort of evidence, even there is not just a bit of similarity. If your brother would have (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
