 | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | (...) I'm not John. But I think the title of the article is the smeary (or 'sensationalist' if you prefer) part, not the body. But then, so's the title of this thread (as John chose it), it smears the Guardian, doesn't it? It does so in the name of (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —Timothy Gould
| | | | | (...) In fact, John is not only metaphorically smearing it, he is proposing literally smearing it as well ;) Tim (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —John Neal
| | | | | (...) Not at all! In fact, I state that the rag is even unworthy of smearing:-) JOHN (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —Timothy Gould
| | | | | (...) I stand corrected. I should have read the title better :) Tim (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —John Neal
| | | | | (...) Sorry to butt in when you were on a roll:-D JOHN (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | |
