Re: [OT] Why Bush?
From: Phil Carmody (thefatphil_demunged_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 11/11/04
- Next message: NoDot: "Re: Any Danger With The "Buffer Overflow Exploits" by using Assembler Language ?"
- Previous message: Phil Carmody: "Re: [OT] Why Bush?"
- In reply to: T.M. Sommers: "Re: [OT] Why Bush?"
- Next in thread: T.M. Sommers: "Re: [OT] Why Bush?"
- Reply: T.M. Sommers: "Re: [OT] Why Bush?"
- Reply: Beyond2000!: "Re: [OT] Why Bush?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 11 Nov 2004 01:45:58 +0200
"T.M. Sommers" <tms@nj.net> writes:
> Typical of you, though, to avoid at all costs any substantive
> discussion.
and then:
> It is well known that one resorts to personal abuse when all of one's
> substantive arguments have failed.
Curious. The "Typical of you..." looks _remarkably_ like personal abuse.
Phil
-- They no longer do my traditional winks tournament lunch - liver and bacon. It's just what you need during a winks tournament lunchtime to replace lost ... liver. -- Anthony Horton, 2004/08/27 at the Cambridge 'Long Vac.'
- Next message: NoDot: "Re: Any Danger With The "Buffer Overflow Exploits" by using Assembler Language ?"
- Previous message: Phil Carmody: "Re: [OT] Why Bush?"
- In reply to: T.M. Sommers: "Re: [OT] Why Bush?"
- Next in thread: T.M. Sommers: "Re: [OT] Why Bush?"
- Reply: T.M. Sommers: "Re: [OT] Why Bush?"
- Reply: Beyond2000!: "Re: [OT] Why Bush?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|