Re: DIS: Re: BUS: OMTTTPF

2007-02-21 Thread Michael Norrish
Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Michael wrote: >> > I was talking about the "we", not the modified quote. >> Indeed, but isn't the "we" part of the quote? > Their use was not Royal, but rather anti-Royal. Rather! I guess I'm not a collection of famous dead Americans, so maybe my "we" came across as Roy

DIS: Re: BUS: OMTTTPF

2007-02-21 Thread Kerim Aydin
Michael wrote: > I was talking about the "we", not the modified quote. Indeed, but isn't the "we" part of the quote? Their use was not Royal, but rather anti-Royal. -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: OMTTTPF

2007-02-21 Thread Michael Norrish
Michael Slone wrote: > On 2/20/07, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's a quote: founding fathers' shtick even. Certainly, nothing I'd >> claim as my own... > I was talking about the "we", not the modified quote. Indeed, but isn't the "we" part of the quote? Michael.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: OMTTTPF

2007-02-21 Thread Michael Slone
On 2/20/07, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's a quote: founding fathers' shtick even. Certainly, nothing I'd claim as my own... I was talking about the "we", not the modified quote. -- Michael Slone