Re: The ultimate luxury ?
From: Hamilcar Barca (hamilcar_at_tld.always.invalid)
Date: 08/04/04
- Next message: Hamilcar Barca: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Previous message: Hamilcar Barca: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Maybe in reply to: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Next in thread: Thomas Edison: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 12:40:34 -0600
In article <4110c936$0$2848$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> (Wed, 04 Aug 2004
10:16:46 +0000), jmfbahciv wrote:
>>On Tue, 03 Aug 04 12:11:13 GMT,
>> jmfbahciv@aol.com <jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> You keep removing sci.physics. In order to answer your question, I
>>> have to keep adding it back in case you post again. I'm not going to
>>> wipe your snot again. If you want me to answer a question, you have to
>>> include the newsgroup I'm reading.
>>>
>>Huh ? Bo's post was crossposted to sci.physics
>
> Nope. Not on my newsserver.
Then, either:
(1) you lied about not being subscribed to comp.os.linux.advocacy; OR
(2) you lied about the article not being crossposted; OR
(3) both.
Which is it?
- Next message: Hamilcar Barca: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Previous message: Hamilcar Barca: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Maybe in reply to: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Next in thread: Thomas Edison: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]