From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Shocked shocked
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:17:17 -0700
On Oct 27, 2004, at 2:08 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:3
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Shocked shocked
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 07:30:26 -0400
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 11:07:37PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> Tha
Erik wrote:
And this is getting silly, so this is my last.
_Getting_ silly???
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 04:34:01PM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:
> Well, I was assuming Dave knew that and the intended question being
> asked was "what does Dan mean wrt the gambling remark?"
Again, Casablanca not required to know what the statement implied in the
context of the thread. While there m
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:43:20 -0400, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:01:33AM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:
>
> > Just curious: If he was unfamiliar with Casablanca and the "shocked,
> > shocked" quote, how would paying greater attent
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:01:33AM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:
> Just curious: If he was unfamiliar with Casablanca and the "shocked,
> shocked" quote, how would paying greater attention (preumably you mean
> to the list conversation) have enabled him to answer his question for
with Casablanca and the "shocked,
shocked" quote, how would paying greater attention (preumably you mean
to the list conversation) have enabled him to answer his question for
himself?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote:
>
> At 11:07 PM Wednesday 10/27/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
> >Dave Land wrote:
> >
> > > Incidentally, I was not concerned that you were trying to sound more
> > > knowledgeable than me (or anyone else). Any criticism along those lines
> > > was directed at Erik, who for s
At 11:07 PM Wednesday 10/27/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
Dave Land wrote:
> Incidentally, I was not concerned that you were trying to sound more
> knowledgeable than me (or anyone else). Any criticism along those lines
> was directed at Erik, who for some reason found it necessary to answer
> my hones
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 11:07:37PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> That's Erik for you -- he's got one of the smartest yaps around here.
> :)
Anyone want to buy a smart yap? It's not fully house-trained, though...
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
__
Dave Land wrote:
> Incidentally, I was not concerned that you were trying to sound more
> knowledgeable than me (or anyone else). Any criticism along those lines
> was directed at Erik, who for some reason found it necessary to answer
> my honest query with a smart-yap comment.
That's Erik for yo
Horn, John wrote:
> I'm still wondering how Sonja knew whether all those messages were
> moderated or not...
Fairly easy actually.
It says so in the message headers.
xponent
Been There Maru
rob
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 02:17:17PM -0700, Dave Land wrote:
> Oh, shut up.
Oh, no.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Oct 27, 2004, at 2:08 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:36:08AM -0700, Dave Land wrote:
Any criticism along those lines was directed at Erik, who for some
reason found it necessary to answer my honest query with a smart-yap
comment.
Whine, whine, whine. If you just paid attention
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:36:08AM -0700, Dave Land wrote:
> Any criticism along those lines was directed at Erik, who for some
> reason found it necessary to answer my honest query with a smart-yap
> comment.
Whine, whine, whine. If you just paid attention, you wouldn't have to
whine about it. I
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Shocked shocked
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:44:12 -0400
Look for similarities between the unreasoning in
Dan's statement and th
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: Shocked shocked
> Horn, John wrote:
>
> > I'm still wondering how Sonja k
Horn, John wrote:
I'm still wondering how Sonja knew whether all those messages were
moderated or not...
Easy -- check the headers. If there's a header "X-Mailman-Approved-At"
header, then it was moderated.
Everything else is unapproved... ;-)
Nick
___
- Original Message -
From: "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:36 PM
Subject: RE: Shocked shocked
> Behalf Of Dan Minette
>
>> I thought that Casablanca was ma
I think on this list it might be best to stick with
SF/Fantasy movie references! :)
Damon.
=
Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: Leg
> Behalf Of Dan Minette
>
> I thought that Casablanca was mainstream enough for most
> folks to get the
> reference. If you didn't, no attempt to sound more
> knowledgeable than you
> was intended. I'm sure you have cultural refererences that I
> wouldn't get
> tooand you are free to use
On Oct 27, 2004, at 10:33 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
I'll answer. It was a cultural reference to Casablanca. The police
chief
shuts down Rick's Cafe Americana, and Rick asks him why. The answer is
"because I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling at this establishment,
sir.&qu
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Shocked shocked
>
> No, thanks. I won't waste my time with that. Maybe Dan will
On Oct 27, 2004, at 9:44 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:22:41AM -0700, Dave Land wrote:
That was the purpose of the question, Eric.
No.
You seem know what the purpose of my question was (or, anyway,
what it was not), yet it is not what /I/ thought it was.
Fascinating.
Or was your
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:22:41AM -0700, Dave Land wrote:
> That was the purpose of the question, Eric.
No.
> What is not as clear is the purpose of your riposte.
It's purpose was to encourage you to re-read and think, Davey. Brin-L
obviously has nothing to do with gambling. So Dan's statement
On Oct 27, 2004, at 9:12 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:00:52AM -0700, Dave Land wrote:
I'll bite: how has Nick set up gambling on Brin-L?
Try to keep up now, Dave!
That was the purpose of the question, Eric.
What is not as clear is the purpose of your riposte.
Dave
_
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:00:52AM -0700, Dave Land wrote:
> I'll bite: how has Nick set up gambling on Brin-L?
Try to keep up now, Dave!
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
ndeed, the
circumstances under which people can be banned from the list when
moderation failed.
Anyone think I need to explain further?
Not me. But, I'm also shocked, shocked to find you have set up
gambling on
brin-l. BTW, I'll send you an account off-list where you can send my
winn
es under which people can be banned from the list when
> moderation failed.
>
> Anyone think I need to explain further?
Not me. But, I'm also shocked, shocked to find you have set up gambling on
brin-l. BTW, I'll send you an account off-list where you can send my
winnings. :-)
Dan M.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
29 matches
Mail list logo
