 | | Re: Free Speech, again —Dave Schuler
| | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
| | | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
| | | | | (...) 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)
| | | | | | |
