Re: _ SHOULD _ Have No Back Reference.
From: Mike Hanson (hanson_mike_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: Getting back to basics"
- Previous message: tj Frazir: "Re: What is eric a edu at ?"
- In reply to: Jeff Relf: "_ SHOULD _ Have No Back Reference."
- Next in thread: Jeff Relf: "Your post had no other effect."
- Reply: Jeff Relf: "Your post had no other effect."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Jul 2004 08:07:07 -0700
Jeff Relf <Jeff_Relf_@_NCPlus.NET.Invalid> wrote in message news:<_Jeff_Relf_2004_Jul_29_A8eL@NCPlus.NET>...
<snip>
> I will now use this RFC to shut people up
> whenever they complain about my title changes.
>
> I will also use it to prove that
> Google.COM is in violation of RFC 1036.
<snip>
If people complain to you about your title changes instead of
complaining to Google about its threading system then which do they
consider the greater inconvenience? Your choosing to make a nuisance
of yourself in this respect merely presents you as someone who likes
to make a nuisance of himself. It has no other effect.
-- Mike.
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: Getting back to basics"
- Previous message: tj Frazir: "Re: What is eric a edu at ?"
- In reply to: Jeff Relf: "_ SHOULD _ Have No Back Reference."
- Next in thread: Jeff Relf: "Your post had no other effect."
- Reply: Jeff Relf: "Your post had no other effect."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
