 | | Re: 23nd and typos (was: Re: Element Count Trivia)
|
|
(...) Well, this administration doesn't see themselves as a branch so much as the trunk of the tree. -Tom McD. when replying, Gore-Spamcake 2000! The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group (URL) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: 23nd and typos (was: Re: Element Count Trivia)
|
|
(...) TRVTH isn't the job of the executive branch. :) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: 23nd and typos (was: Re: Element Count Trivia)
|
|
(...) Odd, how "TRVTH" never made it to the White House mansion. -Tom McD. when replying, due to a small Y2K glitch, instead of soy filler, various amounts of spamcake were leaked into an unnamed pork processing plant production chain in Atlanta. (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | 23nd and typos (was: Re: Element Count Trivia)
|
|
(...) I still can't believe the U.S. Constitution says "Congrefs" all over it. Not to mention "TRVTH" all over all the justice buildings. --Todd ;-) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Rose Parade Float
|
|
(...) Darn fingers always get in the way when touched-typing. --Todd (26 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: My complaint about Jasper Janssen (SPOILER)
|
|
(...) Indeed it does. Second paragraph: " Take a good, close look at yourself, Jasper. What you'll probably find is that you're ornery. He maintains a cozy relationship with wild brown-nosing porn stars. " So, Larry.. why was it my name in (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) <Snip Nena><I thought they only did that to males? -- Shut up, Pinky.> (...) To tell you the truth, I copied them off a random web page this time. I didn't have the .mp3 handy, or I'd have typed it in. (...) Nah, my second language is English, (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
|
(...) I don't think that's at issue. The thing is, we don't count what year we've completed, we count what year we're IN. (AD = "in the year of our Lord".) So we're currently IN the 2000th year; therefore, we've not finished the current millennium (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
|
(...) See: (URL) my rebuttal of the "well the dating system is wrong, arbitrary, etc" idea. (...) No, you can't. If we take as a given that we are accepting the current dating system, and if we take as a given the currently accepted definition of a (...) (26 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
|
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Dave Schuler (<Fnrwno.43A@lugnet.com>) wrote at 18:57:24 (...) Well, I've bitten my tongue so far, but here goes: The current system for numbering years was only invented some time in the fifth or sixth century, IIRC. Therefore, (...) (26 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
