Re: JSH: Assocation - Answer to the above three
From: Saint Cad (saintcad_at_emailblackhole.com)
Date: 09/01/04
- Next message: Mensanator: "Re: JSH: Assocation - Answer to the above three"
- Previous message: Jim Burns: "Re: ordered pair"
- In reply to: Daniel Ryan: "Re: JSH: Assocation - Answer to the above three"
- Next in thread: Mensanator: "Re: JSH: Assocation - Answer to the above three"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 04:38:41 GMT
"Daniel Ryan" <danielmryan@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:08bZc.2666$H23.25629@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> As far as the relevance is concerned, that boigraphical fact could help
you
> gauge how James will react in one of these extended discussions.
>
> Yes, I took his word for it - because I met him in a group with at least
two
> vets of the U.S. military, neither of whom called him on it. This isn't
> proof, but it's good enough for everyday credibility.
>
> You can ask him to back it up explicitly if you like.
>
>
But do you have a "null-test" to prove it?
- Next message: Mensanator: "Re: JSH: Assocation - Answer to the above three"
- Previous message: Jim Burns: "Re: ordered pair"
- In reply to: Daniel Ryan: "Re: JSH: Assocation - Answer to the above three"
- Next in thread: Mensanator: "Re: JSH: Assocation - Answer to the above three"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
