On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 9:08 AM
> Subject: RE: Oops...
>
>
>>> Robert Seeberger w
- Original Message -
From: "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 9:08 AM
Subject: RE: Oops...
>> Robert Seeberger wrote
>> >
>> > Type O was the original paleolithic blood type.
&
> Robert Seeberger wrote
> >
> > Type O was the original paleolithic blood type.
> > Type A showed up after agriculture changed our diet from
> > hunter/gatherer.
> > Then type B, AB, etc.
> > I didn't realize type O (high protein diets) correlates with
> > internet posters.
>
> Jon..that is
On 09/10/2007, at 12:26 PM, jon louis mann wrote:
>
> Type O was the original paleolithic blood type.
> Type A showed up after agriculture changed our diet from
> hunter/gatherer.
Ah, the "Blood Type Diet", which is almost certainly pure woo:
"Allele O phylogenetic analysis suggests that the mos
- Original Message -
From: "jon louis mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:26 PM
Subject: Oops...
> IAAMOAC is a good idea.
> I am a member of a civilization
>
> Opps...
> The Most Common Blood Type Among Internet Posters Is Type-O Positi
At 09:26 PM Monday 10/8/2007, jon louis mann wrote:
>IAAMOAC is a good idea.
>I am a member of a civilization
>
>Opps...
>The Most Common Blood Type Among Internet Posters Is Type-O Positive
>Maru
> -- Ronn! :)
>
>uh, uh...
>
>Type O was the original paleolithic blood type.
>Type A showed up afte
On OpenMail
playsound "ScoobyDoo-puzzled"
type char, "?"
End OpenMail
Call me feeble minded and dense, because I'm sure you do, but what
point does such an artfully un-commented Comment below make?
- Jonathan -
On Oct 25, 2006, at 8:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], J
On Oct 25, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 at 12:29, Jonathan wrote:
On Oct 25, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 at 10:55, Nick Arnett wrote:
"Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the
U.N.
headquarters in Baghdad, th
On 27/10/2006, at 9:14 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get
to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical
progression,
from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as
paranoia progresses. Seen it all b
On 26 Oct 2006 at 16:40, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Well done, you trumped yourself. I never said it, you did. People
> > REALLY need to think before invoking Godwin's law. It also proves my
> > point - Godwin's law is itself a para
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well done, you trumped yourself. I never said it, you did. People
REALLY need to think before invoking Godwin's law. It also proves my
point - Godwin's law is itself a paranoid conspiracy meme. (Right up
there with "Won't someone think of
On 26 Oct 2006 at 16:03, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your
> > > historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*,
> > > Saran shells were still potentially let
On 26 Oct 2006 at 15:56, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > You ARE denying it, and "leftover" warheads, right. Over FIVE HUNDRED
> > leftover warheads, right.
>
>
> Oh, I'm sorry, I missed the memo that said we get to count degraded old
> non
On 27 Oct 2006 at 8:52, Charlie Bell wrote:
>
> On 27/10/2006, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
> >
> >> Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all
> >> those
> >
> > Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get
> > to the holocaust denial? Beca
On 10/26/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your
> historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*,
> Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes.
Once, as far as I can find.
No, n
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You ARE denying it, and "leftover" warheads, right. Over FIVE HUNDRED
leftover warheads, right.
Oh, I'm sorry, I missed the memo that said we get to count degraded old
non-working warheads as a "stockpile." Must be in this pile of old
On 27/10/2006, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all
those
Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get
to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression,
from the little popular histori
On 27/10/2006, at 5:04 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your
historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*,
Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes.
Once, as far as I can find.
Yes, 2 1/2 ye
quot;Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:09:38
To:"Killer Bs Discussion"
Subject: Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> How you bothered to actually read the evidence rath
On 26 Oct 2006 at 14:09, Nick Arnett wrote:
> I haven't denied that. I've just refused to leap to the conclusion that
> A couple of leftover warheads with sarin hardly constitutes a stockpile,
Lies. PLAIN LIES.
You ARE denying it, and "leftover" warheads, right. Over FIVE HUNDRED
leftover wa
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How you bothered to actually read the evidence rather than taking the
politicans spin? There might be some actual material proving my
point!
Read it? I've posted it.
And my satire of Bush's idea that it was "not encouraging" that we
On 26 Oct 2006 at 13:14, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > And there are no outright "lies". I never said there were. What I
> > actually said was that the fact over 700-800 shells with chemical
> > weapon traces, more than the number which wer
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And there are no outright "lies". I never said there were. What I
actually said was that the fact over 700-800 shells with chemical
weapon traces, more than the number which were believed he held (400-
500) is somehow NOT considered very n
On 26 Oct 2006 at 7:02, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > They're lying. Period.
> >
> > Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding dangerous
> > Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the so-called news
> > report
> On Behalf Of Andrew Crystall
>
> Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding
> dangerous Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the
> so-called news reporters wouls say something about it..I talk
> to friends of American soliders out there for the real news, tbh).
I'm
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They're lying. Period.
Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding dangerous
Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the so-called news
reporters wouls say something about it..I talk to friends of American
soliders
On 25 Oct 2006 at 23:02, pencimen wrote:
> Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
> > Indeed...
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
>
> One shell constitutes an active program???
> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163896/posts
>
> Looks like a right wing loony site. Can
Nick Arnett wrote:
> I have to correct myself. Wasn't taking notes. Here's
> exactly what he
> said:
>
> "Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing
> of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not
> find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the
>
On 25 Oct 2006 at 15:34, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > So...why DO you think Iraq did not still have a chemical weapons
> > program?
>
>
> Which part of "when we invaded" do you not understand???
>
> They didn't have a program and t
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If he had chemical WMDs when we invaded, then the president of the
United
> States misled the entire country this morning.
>
> He was discouraged that Saddam didn't *still* have WMDs, apparently.
Unless, of course, those wea
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are you arguing here?
and then.
> So, Mr Braveheart. Content with being a real hero - but only when you
> play one online?
and then..
> I'm more interested in whatever became of the Anthrax poisoning of a
> few key
Andrew Crystall wrote:
> Indeed...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
One shell constitutes an active program???
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163896/posts
Looks like a right wing loony site. Can you find the same story
from a reputable source?
Like this one:
On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So...why DO you think Iraq did not still have a chemical weapons
program?
Which part of "when we invaded" do you not understand???
They didn't have a program and they didn't have stockpiles -- when we
invaded.
Thus, as our dear leade
On 25 Oct 2006 at 12:29, Jonathan wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
> > On 25 Oct 2006 at 10:55, Nick Arnett wrote:
> >
> >> "Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the
> >> U.N.
> >> headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find
On 25 Oct 2006 at 12:56, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "WMD", right. A useless politicised term. I prefer the precise term
> > "NBC". Which, indeed, he retained the capacity for. They're STILL
> > finding stashes of decayed chemical warfar
On 10/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IIRC, there have been some chemical weapons found in Iraq, including a
story I read sometime when insurgents used an old mustard gas shell as an
IED. However, there has not been large enough stocks of sufficient known
manufacture lots to
reless handheld.
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.
-Original Message-
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:56:00
To:"Killer Bs Discussion"
Subject: Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10
On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"WMD", right. A useless politicised term. I prefer the precise term
"NBC". Which, indeed, he retained the capacity for. They're STILL
finding stashes of decayed chemical warfare shells out there.
Are you saying that when we invaded, Ira
On Oct 25, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 at 10:55, Nick Arnett wrote:
"Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the
U.N.
headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of
weapons
of mass destruction, and the continued loss
On 25 Oct 2006 at 12:14, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > You mean except the sarin shells and suchlike? Yea. no, he didn't
> > have nuclear capacity, but chemical and a willingness to use it? Ask
> > the Kurds.
>
>
> If he had chemical
On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You mean except the sarin shells and suchlike? Yea. no, he didn't
have nuclear capacity, but chemical and a willingness to use it? Ask
the Kurds.
If he had chemical WMDs when we invaded, then the president of the United
States misled t
On 25 Oct 2006 at 10:55, Nick Arnett wrote:
> "Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N.
> headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons
> of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's finest sons
> and daughters."
>
Didn't Bush say from the get-go that the US would be going after the
terrorists' finances? How can these terrorists be as insidious and
frighteningly organized as he claims but still not be bright enough
to assume their financiers are being watched? Regardless of whether
or not they can impleme
Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 11, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Gary Nunn wrote:
> Scandal rocks Ohio GOP insider
>
> He can't account for millions state put in his rare coin fund
>
> James Dao, New York Times
>
> Saturday, May 28, 2005
[...]
> Democrats have tried to turn the missing
On Jun 11, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Gary Nunn wrote:
Scandal rocks Ohio GOP insider
He can't account for millions state put in his rare coin fund
James Dao, New York Times
Saturday, May 28, 2005
[...]
Democrats have tried to turn the missing coins into a morality tale
about
the dangers of one-p
At 04:34 PM Wednesday 2/2/2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'm about out of ideas without being there to poke at it.
>
> First, with only a working disk on the system, try booting using a
> Knoppix disk and see whether you can read the new hard drive.
At 04:28 PM Wednesday 2/2/2005, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
I'm about out of ideas without being there to poke at it.
First, with only a working disk on the system, try booting using a
Knoppix disk and see whether you can read the new hard drive. If you
cannot, this is a bad suggestion. (Howeve
* Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'm about out of ideas without being there to poke at it.
>
> First, with only a working disk on the system, try booting using a
> Knoppix disk and see whether you can read the new hard drive. If you
> cannot, this is a bad suggestion. (Howev
I'm about out of ideas without being there to poke at it.
First, with only a working disk on the system, try booting using a
Knoppix disk and see whether you can read the new hard drive. If you
cannot, this is a bad suggestion. (However, I have been able to boot
every Intel 386 and compati
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:11:07 -0600, Ronn!Blankenship
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >It sounds like your new drive was set to CS. It's not a good idea to
> >mix CS with drives set to master or slave though; you might get lucky
> >and have it work, or it might not work. (I doubt it would damage
At 09:47 PM Sunday 1/30/2005, Bryon Daly wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 16:59:21 -0600, Ronn!Blankenship
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 01:50 AM Sunday 1/30/2005, Bryon Daly wrote:
>
> I did not look at the jumpers on the new drive (#1) as they were set at the
> factory before attempting to copy from
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 16:59:21 -0600, Ronn!Blankenship
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 01:50 AM Sunday 1/30/2005, Bryon Daly wrote:
>
> I did not look at the jumpers on the new drive (#1) as they were set at the
> factory before attempting to copy from the other drives, but when I got it
> out, ther
At 01:50 AM Sunday 1/30/2005, Bryon Daly wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:29:37 -0600, Ronn!Blankenship
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
> the night this happened. So, you experts out there, any ideas on how to
> completely repair the problem(s), or at least recover the data?
My sympathies. I've just ha
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:29:37 -0600, Ronn!Blankenship
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
> the night this happened. So, you experts out there, any ideas on how to
> completely repair the problem(s), or at least recover the data?
My sympathies. I've just had my computer crap out on me, (including a
brok
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> When I tried to copy the files from my old computer which died
> back in November onto this new computer by putting the hard
> drives** from the old one into this one in the secondary
> position, something strange and not-wonderful happened. The
> first one worked fine. Th
> From: iaamoac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > No, it just that it matters much more when it involves illegally
> > selling arms to a country which has very recently held American
> > diplomatic personnel hostage, then when it involves adu
> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >I think there's a critical difference, however.
> >What Clinton did hadlittle to no impact on how he performed
> > in office, while Bush's action are having a daily-felt
> >impact on people all over
At 04:36 PM 3/25/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
Kevin Tarr wrote:
> Kevin T. - VRWC
> What is air?
Off the top of my head, nitrogen, oxygen,
Argon is third at about 0.94%, IIRC without looking it up.
carbon dioxide, and some other
stuff. Why?
FWIW, hair keeps the air off the top of my head
Kevin Tarr wrote:
> Kevin T. - VRWC
> What is air?
Off the top of my head, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and some other
stuff. Why?
Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 07:17 AM 3/25/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of iaamoac
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 5:47 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied
> Ag
On 25 Mar 2003 at 7:48, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> At 02:09 PM 3/24/03 -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote:
> >John Horn wrote:
> >>>Boy, Republicans *really* hate that man...
> >
> >Ronn! replied:
> >>...about as much as some now hate Bush -- and everything he stands
> >>for, and everything he does, just
From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:46:33 -
--- In [EMAIL PROTE
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of iaamoac
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 5:47 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied
> Again)
>
>
> --- In [
At 02:09 PM 3/24/03 -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote:
John Horn wrote:
Boy, Republicans *really* hate that man...
Ronn! replied:
...about as much as some now hate Bush -- and everything he stands for,
and everything he does, just because _he_ stands for/does it?
I support the war, but I don't support
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did it appear in SI? Your link pointed to Scaife's paper, and
since I knew
> that John Steigerwald is a Pittsburgher, I assumed that the story
originated
> there (like so much other Clinton-bashing).
Yes, the article noted (if
--- iaamoac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, if compulsive lying and perjury don't
> matter - how come it
> only bothers you when you think that Republicans are
> doing it, and not Democrats?...
Umm, I'm pretty sure that he at some point said he
*voted* for Bush, or at least that was t
Nick Arnett wrote:
>Did it appear in SI?
Yep. It was an interesting article. Basically, Clinton the golfer seems like Clinton
the President (a parallel the author draws as well). Possessed of an innate charm and
talent, but far too willing to cut corners.
And in it, Clinton asserts he did d
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of iaamoac
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 1:21 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied
> Again)
>
>
> --- In [EMAIL PRO
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...in case you still didn't believe that Bill Clinton
> > is and was a compulsive liar, he now claims to have
> > dunked a basketball in a high school basketball game.
>
> Oops, consider the source.
Sports Illustrated?
JDG
John Horn wrote:
Boy, Republicans *really* hate that man...
Ronn! replied:
...about as much as some now hate Bush -- and everything he stands for, and
everything he does, just because _he_ stands for/does it?
I support the war, but I don't support Bush in general. Hate is probably
too strong a w
> -Original Message-
> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 03:17 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again
>
>
>
> ---Original Message---
> From: "Miller
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, it just that it matters much more when it involves illegally
> selling arms to a country which has very recently held American
> diplomatic personnel hostage, then when it involves adultery.
I must have missed the part where you c
- Original Message -
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 5:16 AM
Subject: Re: RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again
>
> ---Original Message---
> From: &
---Original Message---
From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I think there's a critical difference, however.
>What Clinton did hadlittle to no impact on how he performed
> in office, while Bush's action are having a daily-felt
>impact on people all over the world.
Reason #13 why
At 16:46 23-03-03 -0600, John Horn wrote:
> ...in case you still didn't believe that Bill Clinton is and was a
> compulsive liar
Give it a rest. He's not president anymore, remember? You won, OK? Your
guy is in office.
Boy, Republicans *really* hate that man...
It's all plain jealousy, I tell
Horn, John wrote:
Give it a rest. He's not president anymore, remember? You won, OK? Your
guy is in office.
Boy, Republicans *really* hate that man...
But they love a guy that tells substantive lies.
"Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth, and we
can proceed with tax
-Original Message-
From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 06:38 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again
At 04:46 PM 3/23/03 -0600, Horn, John wrote:
> > From: J.D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> &g
At 04:46 PM 3/23/03 -0600, Horn, John wrote:
> From: J.D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ...in case you still didn't believe that Bill Clinton
> is and was a compulsive liar
Give it a rest. He's not president anymore, remember? You won, OK? Your
guy is in office.
Boy, Republicans *really*
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of J.D. Giorgis
> ...in case you still didn't believe that Bill Clinton
> is and was a compulsive liar, he now claims to have
> dunked a basketball in a high school basketball game.
Oops, consider the source
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...in case you still didn't believe that Bill Clinton
> > is and was a compulsive liar
>
> Give it a rest. He's not president anymore, remember? You won,
> OK? Your
> guy is in office.
>
> Boy, Republicans *really* hate tha
> From: J.D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ...in case you still didn't believe that Bill Clinton
> is and was a compulsive liar
Give it a rest. He's not president anymore, remember? You won, OK? Your
guy is in office.
Boy, Republicans *really* hate that man...
- jmh
81 matches
Mail list logo
