 | | Re: test
|
| (...) Probably. =) -- jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily" (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
| | | | | Re: test
|
| (...) Almost certainly. Jasper (25 years ago, 26-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
| | | | | Re: test
|
| (...) Here the proof... ;-) Shiri P.S. This is the most meaningless thread I've ever read :-) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
| | | | | Re: test
|
| (...) Wow. Its actually working. (...) Haven't been on usenet long, I gather? Cascades are generally fairly meaningless. Jasper (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
| | | | | Re: test
|
| (...) I think we can gather a conclusion: A thread in lugnet.off-topic.test is indeed possible! (Though totally useless...) (...) Well, in fact, I've *never* been there... Guess I haven't missed much. -Shiri (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
| | | | | Re: test
|
| It does work! Ha ha! How long can we keep this up? (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
| | | | | Re: test
|
| (...) I want to say "too long", but that'd be perpetuating a cascade. In a test group. Ouch. I need to get a life. Jasper (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
| | | | | Re: test
|
| (...) Nothing wrong with cascades. :) There seems to be a consistently resurgent desire to have actual threads here. Witness a well-meaning one-post-long thread at (URL), linguistic silliness starting at (URL), the obvious at (URL), some je ne sais (...) (25 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
| |
