Re: infinity
- From: Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:23:14 -0600
In article <MPG.1d6d56c636f0fd9698a0f0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > You are really completely inconsistent.
> It's not all worked out, but at least there is an attempt at consistency. If
> I
> keep this up for another 100 years, it will be a heck of a lot more cohesive
> than the current theory.
Do us all a favor, and don't come back til then.
.
- References:
- infinity
- From: Theo Jacobs
- Re: infinity
- From: Jeroen Boschma
- Re: infinity
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: infinity
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: infinity
- From: Jeroen Boschma
- Re: infinity
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: Martin Shobe
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: infinity
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- infinity
- Prev by Date: Re: infinity
- Next by Date: Re: infinity
- Previous by thread: Re: infinity
- Next by thread: Re: infinity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|