Re: strlen(), K+1: clarification
- From: Willem <willem@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:46:35 +0000 (UTC)
Randy wrote:
) I'm fairly convinced that he may just be intentionally spewing
) falsehoods just for the attention it garners. Nobody could this many
) things wrong over and over again. His batting average is too bad.
You know, I'm starting to believe you're right. You've made this point
before, I think, but I wanted more evidence.
)> A simple "Oh, I see. You're right." would have been enough.
)
) But for a head case that desperately seeks any and all attention, good
) or bad, it would have been counterproductive to do so.
Very true. In that light, he must be very proud of himself for having
so many replies directed at him.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: strlen(), K+1: clarification
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: strlen(), K+1: clarification
- References:
- strlen(), K+1: clarification
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: strlen(), K+1: clarification
- From: Ben Bacarisse
- Re: strlen(), K+1: clarification
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: strlen(), K+1: clarification
- From: Willem
- Re: strlen(), K+1: clarification
- From: Randy Howard
- strlen(), K+1: clarification
- Prev by Date: Re: strlen(), K+1: clarification
- Next by Date: Re: strlen(), K+1: clarification
- Previous by thread: Re: strlen(), K+1: clarification
- Next by thread: Re: strlen(), K+1: clarification
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
