- Original Message -
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Killer Bs Discussion"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: Democrats secular?
> At
At 03:20 PM 2/17/2004 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
>So, what gives? The answer, I think, was in their replies to a question
>about public expressions of Christianity.
Even moreso than that running against a baby-killer helps too.
Abortion definitely outranks personal adultery for a large numbe
Kevin Tarr wrote:
You are still sending it 8bit transfer-encoded and getting the list
attatchment. Not a big deal though. At least the mystery of the
phantom
attatchments is solved.
Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I did everything I could to turn that off. There is an encoding choice
You are still sending it 8bit transfer-encoded and getting the list
attatchment. Not a big deal though. At least the mystery of the phantom
attatchments is solved.
Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I did everything I could to turn that off. There is an encoding choice but
it's for attachment
Kevin Tarr wrote:
>
> At 05:58 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote:
>
> >The list is tacking on an attatchment that is coming through on your
> >e-mails. The message at the bottom of all list posts that has the lists'
> >web address is 7bit encoded, whereas your email is 8bit encoded. It's
> >solution is t
At 04:58 PM 2/19/04, Michael Harney wrote:
From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 03:52 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote:
>
> >Why do some posts still have attachements? I thought the server that
> >relayes them strippes attachements. Kevin's post f.i. has two (see
below).
> >One saying that his outg
From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 05:58 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote:
>
> >
> >The list is tacking on an attatchment that is coming through on your
> >e-mails. The message at the bottom of all list posts that has the lists'
> >web address is 7bit encoded, whereas your email is 8bit enco
At 05:58 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote:
From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 03:52 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote:
>
> >Why do some posts still have attachements? I thought the server that
> >relayes them strippes attachements. Kevin's post f.i. has two (see
below).
> >One saying that his outgoing mai
From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 03:52 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote:
>
> >Why do some posts still have attachements? I thought the server that
> >relayes them strippes attachements. Kevin's post f.i. has two (see
below).
> >One saying that his outgoing mail is virus free the other was the
Kevin Tarr wrote:
At 03:52 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote:
Why do some posts still have attachements? I thought the server that
relayes them strippes attachements. Kevin's post f.i. has two (see
below). One saying that his outgoing mail is virus free the other was
the added iformercial from our frien
--- Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this better? I only noticed yesterday that
> outgoing e-mail is being
> scanned AND certified. But it's just part of the
> message, not an
> attachment. I receive some mail on the subservient
> list that has
> attachments for no other reason than
At 03:52 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote:
Why do some posts still have attachements? I thought the server that
relayes them strippes attachements. Kevin's post f.i. has two (see below).
One saying that his outgoing mail is virus free the other was the added
iformercial from our friendly neighbourhood s
Why do some posts still have attachements? I thought the server that
relayes them strippes attachements. Kevin's post f.i. has two (see
below). One saying that his outgoing mail is virus free the other was
the added iformercial from our friendly neighbourhood server (Which
could be scrapped if
Do you vote in primaries?
(I vote in Republican primaries because whatever district I'm in tends
to be a lock for the Republicans and I want to have some say in who
represents me.)
Julia
Eight of ten times I vote in the primary. I was going to switch parties,
just to vote for Dennis K. o
Kevin Tarr wrote:
>
> At 04:27 PM 2/17/2004, you wrote:
>
> >--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The only way for Democrats to win in the South is to
> > > win a good portion of
> > > these folks over. This can be done by emphasizing
> > > the economic issues and
> >
> >I basically
At 04:27 PM 2/17/2004, you wrote:
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only way for Democrats to win in the South is to
> win a good portion of
> these folks over. This can be done by emphasizing
> the economic issues and
I basically agree with everything you wrote (I think -
I read i
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only way for Democrats to win in the South is to
> win a good portion of
> these folks over. This can be done by emphasizing
> the economic issues and
I basically agree with everything you wrote (I think -
I read it fairly quickly). I think it's m
>More important than any of those is secularism, in my
>opinion. The Democratic Party has a remarkable
>ability to have leaders who are fairly secular
>(Mondale, Dukakis) or actively disdain religion (Dean,
>if he wins the nomination). Americans are, on the
>whole, quite religious. Lower middle
18 matches
Mail list logo
