 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) economy (...) the (...) social (...) earmarking (...) other (...) (getting ready to duck and run) Another point to raise about the issue of lobbyists getting to decide how money gets spent: If one feels that (...) (24 years ago, 23-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Digital Camera
|
|
:^) There, now. Let's all have some milk and cookies. (and LEGO) ~M (...) not the (...) Mark's (...) (24 years ago, 23-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Digital Camera
|
|
(...) Same here - sorry for that. I guess my post WAS badly worded (and it's not the first time either, dang, I should watch my english) and when I read Mark's reply, I got pretty heated up... sorry Mark, and apology accepted. No hard feelings? (...) (24 years ago, 23-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
(...) Ummmm.... which lobbying groups are you talking about that do anything other than stuff money in politicians' and parties' campaign funds? I think its pretty clear that's what Larry was getting at, not talking about people (or groups) giving (...) (24 years ago, 23-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Digital Camera
|
|
I responded a bit strongly, though it -was- intended to be sarcasm. That's why I apologized... I didn't want any permanently hurt feelings. ~M (...) the (...) when (...) right (...) the (...) misconstrued as anger (...) didn't (...) very well on (...) (24 years ago, 22-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
