|
Wow...a new record by D'Plum?
Over thirty posts in about 2 1/2 hours!
I'm sure they were all well thought out posts! -- "Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown) John H |
Wow...a new record by D'Plum?
On Jan 24, 2:23*pm, John H wrote:
Over thirty posts in about 2 1/2 hours! I'm sure they were all well thought out posts! -- "Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown) John H Just like yours and mine. You're just about the most thoughtful guy I know. That's why I've chosen to emulate you and post under your blessed name. Herring is a bait fish, right? |
Wow...a new record by D'Plum?
|
Wow...a new record by D'Plum?
I am Tosk wrote:
In article , says... Over thirty posts in about 2 1/2 hours! I'm sure they were all well thought out posts! More indication that it's actually Harry... Scotty Wrong again, ****forbrains...I've been in downtown DC since shortly after noon, at a museum. Got back at 5:30 or so. Besides, ID spoofing is the game you right-wing nitwits play every day. |
Wow...a new record by D'Plum?
"John H" wrote in message
... Over thirty posts in about 2 1/2 hours! I'm sure they were all well thought out posts! -- "Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown) John H Like I said, you can't not read them. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Wow...a new record by D'Plum?
"I am Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... Over thirty posts in about 2 1/2 hours! I'm sure they were all well thought out posts! More indication that it's actually Harry... Scotty More indication that you're not too bright? Besides, which Harry? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Wow...a new record by D'Plum?
nom=de=plume wrote:
"I am Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... Over thirty posts in about 2 1/2 hours! I'm sure they were all well thought out posts! More indication that it's actually Harry... Scotty More indication that you're not too bright? Besides, which Harry? Not me, the "real" Harry. It's the righties who engage in the ID spoofing every day. |
Wow...a new record by D'Plum?
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:13:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . Over thirty posts in about 2 1/2 hours! I'm sure they were all well thought out posts! -- "Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown) John H Like I said, you can't not read them. "Can't not read"? I wonder if a double contraction is permissible? Something like "can't't." Of course if negation is the course for the day, one might be able to cancel a "not" by multiplying the double contraction by a "1/not" ((can't't)(1/not)) to end up with a "can't." Or maybe one 'can't' do that. Of course, if you're a moral relativist, everything is permissible... |
Wow...a new record by D'Plum?
wrote in message
... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:13:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. Over thirty posts in about 2 1/2 hours! I'm sure they were all well thought out posts! -- "Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown) John H Like I said, you can't not read them. "Can't not read"? I wonder if a double contraction is permissible? Something like "can't't." Of course if negation is the course for the day, one might be able to cancel a "not" by multiplying the double contraction by a "1/not" ((can't't)(1/not)) to end up with a "can't." Or maybe one 'can't' do that. Of course, if you're a moral relativist, everything is permissible... English is a living language, and this isn't an English class. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Wow...a new record by D'Plum?
wrote in message
... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:13:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. Over thirty posts in about 2 1/2 hours! I'm sure they were all well thought out posts! -- "Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown) John H Like I said, you can't not read them. "Can't not read"? I wonder if a double contraction is permissible? Something like "can't't." Of course if negation is the course for the day, one might be able to cancel a "not" by multiplying the double contraction by a "1/not" ((can't't)(1/not)) to end up with a "can't." Or maybe one 'can't' do that. Of course, if you're a moral relativist, everything is permissible... Feel free to look through all my posts and point out the typos if it makes you feel goodly. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com