Re: 83 vs. 85/86

To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
Subject: Re: 83 vs. 85/86
From: CaptainSp <soleil@UNFORGETTABLE.COM>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 16:59:51 -0800
Comments: To: Joseph Gaffney <gaffney@THETHINKER.COM>
References: <v02110100b0dd9025388e@[206.149.127.65]> <3.0.1.32.19980110190256.007a7580@www.thethinker.com> <3.0.1.32.19980110192813.007b1940@www.thethinker.com> <3.0.1.32.19980110195341.0079d9c0@www.thethinker.com>
Reply-To: captain@heartthrob.com

My words were "not in a hurry to..." Read more carefully next time.

CaptainSp

Joseph Gaffney wrote:
>
> At 04:37 PM 1/10/98 -0800, CaptainSp wrote:
> >??? Excuse me... but I did NOT say they were documenting it. I said they
> >were not in a hurry to doscument it because they even intend on making
> >it.  You need to read the things you reply to.
> >
> >CaptainSp
> >
>
> In a hurry to implies that they intend to... which they don't.  Be more
> specific next time.
>
>  ----------------------------------------------
> |               Joseph M. Gaffney              |
> |    Efnet: rm-rf - gaffney@thethinker.com     |
> |  http://www.thethinker.com/members/gaffney/  |
>  ----------------------------------------------

References:

Re: 83 vs. 85/86

From: Grant Stockly <gussie@ALASKA.NET>

Re: 83 vs. 85/86

From: Joseph Gaffney <gaffney@THETHINKER.COM>

Re: 83 vs. 85/86

From: Joseph Gaffney <gaffney@THETHINKER.COM>

Re: 83 vs. 85/86

From: Joseph Gaffney <gaffney@THETHINKER.COM>

Prev: Re: 83 vs. 85/86
Next: Re: 83 vs. 85/86
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread