Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)

On Sat, 28 May 2005 04:31:36 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
>news:0iof91pml844lqaeanmvvlfm3o20nbduqb@xxxxxxx:
>
>> On Sat, 28 May 2005 01:24:47 GMT, Philip Deitiker
>> <Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
>>>news:t7ef91dm7ac6h96p9i24c7utqed9carf5e@xxxxxxx:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 09:44:12 -0600, "Tedd Jacobs"
>>>> <Jacobs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Eric Stevens" wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>>leave it to eric...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Would you rather it was Philip? :-)
>>>>
>>>> I did look before I responded. As far as I can tell, the only
>>>> article by Paul Burke in which he starts a new thread is the
>>>> one in which he complains about the range of topics presently
>>>> under discussion. This is not an uncommon phenomenon and the
>>>> cure may be partly in his own hands.
>>>
>>>His point is that you always take exception with what might be,
>>>when it is obvious that we are arguing about what will never be.
>>>Your not under attack here Eric, you actually know where to find
>>>solid ground if you so choose. Although frequently you choose
>>>not to :^).
>>>
>> My preferred line is "Build not your arguments on sand".
>
>Which randomly means 75% of the time you build it on water.
>
I thought sand was at the bottom of that also?



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages