Re: On formal HAS-A definition
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 17:16:37 -0300
Message-ID: <4be5c6a7$0$12453$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> I'm pleased to see a direct reply from you, Bob. Does that mean I'm
> not killfiled anymore? I was hoping that one day my vociferous
> ignorance and flippant attitude could be forgiven if I studied
> hard. :)
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 17:16:37 -0300
Message-ID: <4be5c6a7$0$12453$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Nilone wrote:
> On May 8, 8:44 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>This is where Clinton becomes vitally important.
>
> I'm pleased to see a direct reply from you, Bob. Does that mean I'm
> not killfiled anymore? I was hoping that one day my vociferous
> ignorance and flippant attitude could be forgiven if I studied
> hard. :)
I was having usenet problems a few weeks ago. In the process of getting things to work, I unsubscribed and resubscribed to c.d.t.
I guess I lost all my filters and didn't realise it.
That explains why I suddenly see so much nonsense again. Now that I'm aware of it, I will be more vigilant and less forgiving of stupidity. Received on Sat May 08 2010 - 22:16:37 CEST