Re: Ohms Law - NOT
From: Rich The Philosophizer (null_at_example.net)
Date: 11/19/04
- Next message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Latest News"
- Previous message: Rich Grise: "Re: Ohms Law"
- In reply to: Active8: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Next in thread: Active8: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Reply: Active8: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:53:50 GMT
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 06:08:35 -0500, Active8 wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:09:06 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 04:38:34 -0500, Active8 wrote:
>> ...
>>> I'll trust Rich that the rest of this is ok, but a quick scan
>>> revealed some grammatical bs down there :)
>>
>> Oh, Good Heavens to Betsy alive! Don't _ever_ "trust" the likes
>> of me!
>>
>> Even when I'm being my non-metawhoozifratz techie guy, I'm still
>> working from memory here. :-)
>>
>> So, yeah - I've got a certain amount of credibility, because some
>> of what I've said has turned out to be accurate, but I'm the _last_
>> one whom you should use as any kind of "final authority" about
>> anything! (except apostrophes, of course. ;-) )
>
> Ok, ok. I just didn't feel like reading any more.
>>
>> True, I've made up RTP,
>
> RTP?
Me.
;^j
Rich
- Next message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Latest News"
- Previous message: Rich Grise: "Re: Ohms Law"
- In reply to: Active8: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Next in thread: Active8: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Reply: Active8: "Re: Ohms Law - NOT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]