Subject:
|
Re: jumping to conclusions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:20:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1286 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > The double standards is (sic) that BPS's work is seen as legitimate, while Dan's
> > > is "in jest". Perhaps he *is* being serious. Why would you assume the former?
> >
> > That is why I said I *feel* Dan's intention was a jest. It is my
> > *interpretation*. *Not* a statement of fact!
>
> And is a jest any less legitimate than any other form of art?
I shall let Dan answer that. ;)
Scott A
>
> ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
88 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
