 | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire? —Richard Franks
|
| | | (...) In some very defined circumstances, it is suspicious - "The company accounts are missing" etc. But that wouldn't be evidence that the company had been up to fraudulent behaviour. This "evidence" is of the sort: "Mummy hasn't told me not to (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire? —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospa...yahoo.com> wrote in message news:FMG645.9Ct@lugnet.com... (...) in (...) Oh, Please...No more stretches OK? It's not that sort of evidence, even there is not just a bit of similarity. If your brother would have (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire? —Richard Franks
|
| | | | (...) Agreed, so we're still waiting for the first slap? It probably isn't a perfect analogy, it wasn't meant to be - the original point was that silence isn't always evidence. (...) Agreed, I don't think what Huw did was more wrong than that. What (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire? —Lawrence Wilkes
|
| | | | (...) In lugnet.technic, Michael Edwards writes: (...) Looks like someone got the first slap! regards lawrence (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
