Oops.

At 03:12 PM 1/29/03 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- Explosion at North Carolina pharmaceutical supply plant kills several people, injures others. "Hello, is this Doctor Jones's office? Could you please send us another copy of that prescription? And this time, please _type it_!" -- Ron

Oops.

Oops. Those definitions are from: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=sophistry :-) Jon _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Oops!

"Two NASA space probes that visited Mars 30 years ago may have found alien microbes on the Red Planet and inadvertently killed them, a scientist is theorizing." <> -- Ronn! :) ___ http:

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 Positive Maru -- Ronn! :) uh, uh... Type O was the original paleolithic blood type. Type A showed up after agriculture changed our diet from hunter/gatherer. Then typ

oops!

I accidently sent the Brinlist an invitation to join Facebook. I must have inadvertently neglected to uncheck it in my address book. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Big oops

I let my domain, mccmedia.com, expire... Ooops. It was due this week and I had put off renewing and then my wife became quite ill on Sunday and spent five days in the hospital, returning yesterday. I think the domain expired at midnight last night. I've taken care of it and things should cat

Re: Oops...

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

Re: Oops...

- 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 Bl

Re: Oops...

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

RE: Oops...

> 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

Re: Oops...

- 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. &

Re: Oops...

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

ADMIN: Oops

Server was down for a while and I didn't realize... got to get the monitoring working properly again. We're back now. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Big oops

> On Behalf Of Nick Arnett > I let my domain, mccmedia.com, expire... Ooops. Fortunately, not a problem. I'm glad no domain-squatters grabbed it and tried to cause trouble. I hope your wife is doing OK now. - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for

Re: Big oops

On 6/29/07, Horn, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Nick Arnett > > > I let my domain, mccmedia.com, expire... Ooops. > > Fortunately, not a problem. I'm glad no domain-squatters grabbed it and > tried to cause trouble. Registrars hold domains for a while -- weeks, if I recall r

Re: Big oops

At 04:18 PM Friday 6/29/2007, Nick Arnett wrote: >On 6/29/07, Horn, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I hope your wife is doing OK now. > > >Tired and weak, but recovering... thanks. >>> That's <<< what's important. Glad to hear it. Hope she continues to improve. -- Ronn! :)

Re: Big oops

- Original Message - From: "Ronn! Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 5:14 PM Subject: Re: Big oops > At 04:18 PM Friday 6/29/2007, Nick Arnett wrote: >>On 6/29/07, Horn, John <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: Big oops

Horn, John wrote: >> On Behalf Of Nick Arnett > >> I let my domain, mccmedia.com, expire... Ooops. > > Fortunately, not a problem. I'm glad no domain-squatters grabbed it and > tried to cause trouble. > > I hope your wife is doing OK now. > > - jmh Yes! Of all the stuff going on, that's the

Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

On 10/25/06, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I just heard our president say that one of the disappointments of the Iraq war is that we didn't find WMDs. I have to correct myself. Wasn't taking notes. Here's exactly what he said: "Other developments were not encouraging, such as the

Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

...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. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/sports/s_124908.html?s_124908.html JDG - No Comment Needed, Maru =

Added "Hoon's Fur Past." Oops.

I've been behind on reading list mail, so I just saw the additional fanfic story that V posted to the list. It's now sitting on my site at: http://stories.brin-l.org/hoonfurpast.html As usual, the main fanfic page is at: http://stories.brin-l.org/ _

Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .

If anyone has noticed that I have been rather quiet recently*, there's a reason. 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 n

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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." >

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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:

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

--- 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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

--- 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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

RE: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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 >

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

RE: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

> 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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

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

RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

> 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

Re: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

--- 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

RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

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*

RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

-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

Re: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

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

RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

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

Re: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

--- 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

RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

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

Re: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

--- 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

RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

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

RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

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

Re: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

> 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

Re: Oops, Bush Just Lied Again....

> 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

Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .

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

Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .

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

Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .

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

Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .

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

Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .

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

Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .

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

Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .

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

Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .

* 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

Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .

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

Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .

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.

Re: RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

---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

Re: RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

- 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: &

RE: RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....

> -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

Oops!: Scandal rocks Ohio Republican Party Insider

There are quite a few articles on this issue and lots and lots of posturing from Republicans trying to distance themselves from this - up to and including returning campaign contributions from him It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. Many people here in Columbus are predicting t

Oops: Audit: $9 Billion Unaccounted for in Iraq

Sounds to me like they are already embracing the Western Democratic Government way of life. I have yet to figure out how this is any different from our Federal Government Gary U.S. Occupation Authority Can't Track $9 Billion Transferred to Iraqi Ministries, Audit Finds U.S. occupati

Re: Oops!: Scandal rocks Ohio Republican Party Insider

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

Re: Oops!: Scandal rocks Ohio Republican Party Insider

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

oops: Bush Slams Leak of Terror Finance Story

Translation: Damn! We got caught. Bush Slams Leak of Terror Finance Story Bush Slams Release of Information on Monitoring of Finances for Terrorist Activities The Associated Press WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a secret anti-terrorism program that tap

Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)

> -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 ga

Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just LiedAgain....)

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

Oops! Should have had a subject, was: (no subject)

I shall call it - Creating a Catastrophe. So feel free to amend the header if you respond. -Travis _ Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=

oops...Virtual Earth image reveals Trident sub's secret propeller

Virtual Earth image reveals Trident sub's secret propeller This month, a photograph appeared on the Internet of the propeller on an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine at Trident Submarine Base in Bangor. A key to the submarine's ability to deploy and remain undetected, propeller designs have

RE: oops: Bush Slams Leak of Terror Finance Story

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

Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)

--- 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, co

RE: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)

> -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

RE: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)

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

Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)

--- 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

RE: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)

> -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 [

Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)

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

  1   2   >