 | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Well you shouldn't have snipped it without comment, then. Snipping stuff around here tends to mean you agree, ne? (not always but of course...) (...) Wouldn't that be a "greater advocate of free pudding"? (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Ne. Hence the other post, which I would have foreshadowed if I'd had any planning. (...) And who doesn't advocate free pudding? Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Me. Who's going to pay for it??? There are no free goods, you know that already, Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) I think sacrosanct expression is put forth as TAANSTFL, but pudding in my world model is a dessert, not a lunch. Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Technically: TANSTAAFL (there aint no such thing as a free lunch) and desserts form part of lunch. At least around here they do. (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Wow--both my spelling and acronymism have been off lately. Too much pudding (which are part of dinner, not lunch, around here). Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
