> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of jon louis mann
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 3:02 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: magic formula
>
>> Let me get this straight. You claim that there are revolutionary
>> inventions, that
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of William T Goodall
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 8:25 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Netiquette
>
>
> On 22 Sep 2007, at 01:32, Dan Minettte wrote:
>
> >
> > I heard that the Stock
On 22 Sep 2007, at 01:32, Dan Minettte wrote:
>
> I heard that the Stockholm Peace Institute is underwriting a remake
> of Kill
> Bill I & II. It will be titled "Take A Chill Pill Bill I & 2." Rough
> drafts of the script have Uma Thurman working out her issues
> through group
> therapy, ra
- Original Message -
From: "Charlie Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Netiquette
>
> On 22/09/2007, at 4:08 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Horn, John wrote:
>>
Martin Lewis wrote
>>>
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Minettte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'"
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 7:32 PM
Subject: RE: Netiquette
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
>> Sent: Fr
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 7:13 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Netiquette
>
>
> On 22/09/2007, at 4:08 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007,
On 22/09/2007, at 4:08 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Horn, John wrote:
>
>>> Martin Lewis wrote
>>>
>>> I was using it in reference to this line:
>>>
>>> "Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill."
>>>
>>> I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were
>>> suggesting s
> sorry, dan, that is a right wing myth!~) do you really think
> everything the us spends of weapons is reported too the GAO, or
> anywhere else for that matter?
the illegal sales of billions of dollars worth of weapons involves a
lot of logistics that would be essentially impossible to keep s
Let me get this straight. You claim that there are revolutionary
inventions, that would allow us to economically obtain energy from,
say, solar power, and they are well documented. Yet, none of the solar
sites references the clearly established documentation for this
invention...even though it is
I read that as "take a chill pill" which is a bit different.
I didn't, initially, so I can understand someone not
getting that immediately, or at all if it wasn't explained.
I believe that is an American colloquialism, and
one that isn't used in my own circles.
i never heard of chill pill, but
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Dave Land wrote:
>
> On Sep 20, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Richard Baker wrote:
>
>> Nick said:
>>
>>> And, ipso facto, the sina qua non for this group.
>>>
>>> Semper fidelus,
>>
>> As we're all being so exact, that should be "sine" and "fidelis".
>
> Actually, how do we Nick was no
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Horn, John wrote:
>> Martin Lewis wrote
>>
>> I was using it in reference to this line:
>>
>> "Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill."
>>
>> I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were
>> suggesting something about my mental state.
>
> I read that as "take a chill
On Sep 20, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Richard Baker wrote:
> Nick said:
>
>> And, ipso facto, the sina qua non for this group.
>>
>> Semper fidelus,
>
> As we're all being so exact, that should be "sine" and "fidelis".
Actually, how do we Nick was not making an oblique reference to
the Society for Indece
> Martin Lewis wrote
>
> I was using it in reference to this line:
>
> "Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill."
>
> I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were
> suggesting something about my mental state.
I read that as "take a chill pill" which is a bit different.
- jmh
CONFID
On 9/21/07, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were suggesting
> > something about my mental state. In other words you were attacking my
> > character rather than the argument. Is this not a perfect example of
> > an ad hominem?
>
> No, becau
On 21/09/2007, at 6:31 PM, Martin Lewis wrote:
>
> I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were suggesting
> something about my mental state. In other words you were attacking my
> character rather than the argument. Is this not a perfect example of
> an ad hominem?
No, because he wasn't
On 9/20/07, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's not an ad hominem, that's just abuse. Ad hominem is when you
> > argue that the person is wrong because of some character of that
> > person, instead of engaging the argument.
>
> I think I sense a trend here:
>
> "Non-sequitur" used and
17 matches
Mail list logo