Subject:
|
Re: The Height of Mootness
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:09:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
769 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 0 - What is the basis for this "9 of 10" assertion? Was this a telephone
> survey or an in person poll? How many of your co workers did you survey? Did
> you examine pictures taken at previous meetings to see if some of them had
> moots(4) on their heads? And why would you do that, anyway? Isn't there
> something just the least bit suspicious about your motives in doing so?
I was trying to incite a mootiny.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Height of Mootness
|
| (...) (0) (...) Correcting their error would, I suspect, be moot. Or at least futile. (1) In this case, though, the only reason I can think that this particular point would be moot is that Scott wanted to be mute about his not having any other (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
189 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
