Michael Oke, II wrote:
> Note:  I re-wrote the subject so I didn't get any more 'heat'.  Yes I
> made an error when I forgot the OT in the original but I didn't take
> Pablo's post as a complaint but as a disagreement with the cartoon.
> That is his choice.  It doesn't make him right. ;)

Hi Michael,

I figured someone had to remark on it. I hope I was more creative than 
the usual [OT] Nazis. Welcome aboard the non-sniffy crew.

>>> Pete - Come On now - its not even Funny! That message by Oke2 was
>>> totally OT - and Pablo was right to complain.
>>>
>>> So - can we PLEASE follow at least SOME rules around here???

>>> P.S. Pete - notice your LAST OT type message here got NO Response! Maybe
>>> that's a hint...      :-)

>> I didn't expect any response. Since I had forgotten the [OT] it didn't
>> make the filters of the guys who *only* read the [OT]. Besides, you know
>> how it is - some guys can tell a joke and some guys can't.
>>
>> Maybe Michael will come over to the full list where he belongs. Hint,
>> hint . . . And it is after work hours for most of the listmembers, so
>> what the . . .
>>
>>>>> This is not [OT] because there is a fox in the henhouse.

>>>>> Actually the "Report [OT] Abuse link at the bottom of the messages has
>>>>> lost its linked site.

>>>> Thanks for clearing *that* up! If anyone missed Michael's link:
>>>>
>>>> http://image.patriotpost.us.s3.amazonaws.com/2010-03-24-chronicle-cartoon-2.jpg
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://pete-theisen.com/
http://elect-pete-theisen.com/

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to